n 



'V.wW,A.'\v^<i-'^' X '^i • ^ V ■"■' 




FREEDOM national; SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 



SPEECH 



d>$ I 



HON. CHARLES SUMNER, 



OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



ON HIS MOTION 



TO REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AUGUST 26, 1852. 



If any man thinks that the interest of these Nations and the interest 
cf Christianity are two separate and distinct things, I wish my soul may 
sever enter into his secret. Oliver Cro:«well. 






WASHINGTON : 
BUELL & B LAN CHARD. 

1852. 



FIFTH EDITION, REVISED. 



^.^> 



^ 



^^ 



8TERE0TYFED BY BOULI & BIAUCHASD, "^ABSiSQlOM, J>. 
Price— Tvro DoUars per Hundred, 



IN EXCHANfle 



SPEECH. 



IE the ScTiatc, Wcdnosdaj', May 26tb. 1S55. on the 
presentation of a memorial against the Fugitive Slave 
Bill, the following passage occurred : 

Mr. SLTMNER. I hold in my hand, and desire to 
present, a memorial from the representatives of the 
Society of Friends in New England, fcrmally adopted 
at a public meeting, and authenticated by their clerk, 
in which they ask for the repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave Bill. After setting forth their sentiments on 
the general subject of slavery, the memorialists pro 
cced as follows : 

" We, therefore, respectfully, but earnestly and sin- 
cerely, entreat you to repeal the law of the last Con- 
gress respecting fugitive slaves; first and principally, 
because of its injustice towards a long sorely-oppress 
ed and deeply-injured people ; and, secondly, in order 
that we, together with other conscientious sufferers, 
nsay be exempted from the penalties which it imposes 
oil all, who in faithfulness to their Divine Master, 
and in discharge of their obligations to their distress- 
ed fellow-mcB, fee! bound to regulate their conduct, 
oven under the heaviest penalties which man can in- 
flict for so doing, by the Divine injunction, 'All 
'things whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you, do you even so to them; ' and by the other com- 
mandment, ' Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.' " 

Mr. President, this rRcmorial is commended by the 
character of the religious association from which it 
proceeds — men who mingle rarely in public affairs, 
but with austere virtue seek to carry the Christian 
rule into life. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will have to inter- 
pose. The Senator is not privileged to enter into a 
discussit>n of the ■subject now The contents of the 
memorial, simply, are to be stated, and then it be- 
comes a question whether it is to be received, if any 
objection is made to its reception. Silence gives con- 
sent. After it is received he can make a motion with 
regard to its reference, and then make anj^ remarks 
ho thinks proper. 

Mr. SUMNER. I have bat a very few words to 
add, and then I propose to move the reference of the 
memorial to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The PRESIDENT. The memorial has first to be 
received before aoy motion as to its reference can be 
entertained. The Senator presenting a memorial 
states distinctly its objects and contents; then it is 
sent to the Chair, if a reference of it is desired. But 
it is not in order to enter into a discussion of the 
merits of the memorial until it has been received. 

Mr. Sl'MXER. I do not propose to enter into any ' 
such discussion. I have already read one part of the 
memorial, and it was my design merely to refer to 
the character of the memorialists — a usage which I I 
have observed on this floor constantly — to state the 
course I should pursue, and then conclude with a 
motion for a reference. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will hear the Sena- ; 
tor, if such is the pleasure of the Senate, if he does 
not go int<> an elaborate discussiou. 1 



Mr. srMNER. I have no such purpose. 
Mr. DAWSON. Let him be heard. 
Several Senators. Certainly. 
Mr. SUMNER. I observed that this memorial was 
commended by the character of the religious associa- 
tion from which it proceeds. It is commended, also, 
by its earnest and persuasive tone, and by the prayer 
which it presents. Otfering it now, sir. I desire sim- 
ply to say, that I shall deem it my duty, on some 
proper occasion hereafter, to express myself at length 
on the matter to which it relates. Thus far, during 
this session, I have forborne. With the exception of 
an able speech from my colleague, [Mr. D.wis,] the 
discussion of this all-absorbing question has been 
mainly left with Senators from another quarter of 
the country, by whose mutual differences it has been 
complicated, and between whom I have not cared to 
interfere. But, there is a time for all things. Jns- 
' tice, also, requires that both sides should be heard ; 
and I trust not to expect too much, when, at some 
fit moment, I bespeak the clear and candid at- 
tention of the Senate, while I undertake to set forth, 
j frankly and fully, and with entire respect for this 
I body, "convictions, deeply cherished in my own State, 
j though disregarded here— to which I am bound by 
j every sentiment of the heart, bj' every fibre of my 
I being, by all mj' devotion to country, by my love 
' of God and man. But, upon these I do not now enter. 
Suffice it, for the present, to say, that when I shall un- 
dertake that service, I believe I shall utter nothing 
{ which, in any just sense, can be called sectional, un- 
! less the Constitution is sectiuiial, and unless the senti- 
{ ments of the fivthers were sectional. It is my happi- 
ness to believe, and my hope to be able to show that, 
I according to the true spirit of the Constitution, and 
according to the sentiments of the fathers, rREEDo^r, 
\ and not slaver ij, is >ation.^.l; while sllvery, and 
I not fi-teiloin. is section.^l. In duty to the petition 
I ers, and with the hope of promoting their prayer, T 
' move the reference of their petition to the Commit 
tee on the Judiciary. 

A brief debate ensued, in which Messrs. Mangum, 
Badger, Hale, Clemens, Dawson, Adams, Butler, and 
Chase, took part : and, on motion of Mr. Badser, the 
memorial was laid on the table. 

On Thursday. 27th July, the subject was again pre- 
sented to the Senate : 

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I have a resolu- 
tion which I desire to offer; and I wish, also, to give 
notice that I shall expect tc cs\^it up to-morrow, at 
an early time in the morning hour, when I shall 
throw myself upon the indulgence of the Senate to 
be heard upon it. 

The resolution was then read, as follows : 
Rrsolvril, That the Committee on the Judiciary be 
requested to consider the expedicacy of rei)orting a 
bill for the immediate repeal of the act of Congress, 
approved September IS, 1850, usually known as the 
Fugitive Slave Act. 
In pursuance of this notice, on the next day, during 



the morning hour, an attempt was made to call it ^ 

\ip. i 

Mr. SUMNEE, Mr. President, T now ask permis- 
sion of the Senate to take up the resolution which I \ 
offered yestenlav. For that purpose, I move that ! 
the prior orders be postponed, and upon this motion 1 
I desire to saj' a word. In asking the Senate to take^ | 
up this resolution for consideration, I say nothing of , 
its merits nor of the arguments by which it may be i 
maintained: nor do I at this stage anticipate any ob- 
jections to it on these grounds. All this will properly 
belong to the discus.sion of the resolution itself— the 
main question — when it is actually before the Senate. ; 
The single iiuestion now is, not the resolution, but 
whether I shall be heard u])on it. As a Senator, un- 
der the responsibilities of my po.'^ition, I have deemed 
it my duty to offer this resolution. I may seem_ to 
have postponed this duty to an inconvenient period 
of the session : but hadi attempted it at an earlier ' 
day. I might have exposed myself to a charge of a 
different character. It might then have been said 
that, a new-comer and inexperienced in this scene, 
without deliberation, hastily, rashly, recklessly, I i 
pushed this ([uestion before the country. This is not 
the case now. I have taken time, and in the e.xer- i 
cisc of my most careful discretion now ask for it the 
attention of the Senate. I shrink from any appeal 
founded on a trivial personal consideration ; but 
should I be blamed for any delay latterly. I may 
add, that though in my seat daily, my bodily health 
for some time past, down to this very week, has not 
been equal to the service I have undertaken. I am 
not sure that it is now; but I desire to try. And 
now again I say the question is simply whether I ; 
shall be heard. In allowing me this privilege— this ; 
right, I might say — you do not commit yourselves in 
any way to the principle of the resolution ; but yon 
merely follow the ordinary usage of the Senate, and 
yield to a brother Senator the opportunity which he 
craves, in the practical distdiarge of his duty, to ex- 
press convictions dear to his heart, and dear to large 
numbers of his constituents. For the sake of these 
constituents, for my own sake, I now desire to be 
heard. Make such disposition of my resolution after- 
ward as to you shall seem best: visit upon me any 
any degree of criticism, censure, or displeasure, but 
do'not deprive me of a hearing. " Strike, but hear.'" 

A debate ensued, in which Messrs. Mason, Brooke, 
Charlton, Shields, Gwin, Douglas, Butler, and Bor- 
land, took part. Objections to taking up the resolu- 
tion were pressed on the ground of " want of time," 
"the lateness of the session,"' and "danger to the 
Union.'' 

The question being then taken upon the motion by 
Mr. ScnNEtt, to take up his resolution, it was re- 
jueted — yeas 10, nays o2 — as follow : 

Yk.\s — Messrs. Clarke, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, 
Foot, Hamlin, Seward, Shields, Sumner, Ui>ham,and 
■\V,i,ln— 10. 

Nays — Messrs. Borlanil, Brodhcnd, Brooke, Cass, 
Clinrlton, Clemens, Dosaussuro, Dodge of Iowa, 
liougla.", Downs, I'V'Ich, Fish, tJeyer, (!win. Hunter, 
King, MaHory, Manguni, Mason, Meriwetlier, Miller, 
Morton, Nurri:', Pearee, Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, 
Bniith, Sould, Spruanco, Toucey, and AVellcr — 32. 

Thurrday, August 26, 1852. 

Jho Civil and I)iplonjatie Appropriation Bill be- 
ing under ennsidi.'ration, the following amendment 
vrtiK iiiovo<l by the Committoo on Finance : 

'• That wlure tli'^ ministerini odiiMTs of the United 
Ptatcs have or fhiiU incur extraordinary expenses in 
cvei.'Uling tln' law." thcroof, the ]i:iymont of which is 
Lot siiccilJcinly provided Ivr, tlio rrcsiUvut «f the 



United States j's authorized to allow the paymcB* 
thereof, under the special taxation of the district or 
circuit court of the district in which the said servicea 
have been or shall be rendered, to be paid from the 
appropriation for defraying the expenses of the judi- 
ciary." 

Mr. SUMNER moved the following amendment to 
the amendment: 

" FroviHrd, That no such allowance shall be au- 
thorized for any expenses incurred in executing the 
act of September IS, IS.JO, for the surrender of fugi- 
tives from service or labor; which said act is hereby 
repealed."' 

On this he took the floor, and spoke as follows: 

Mr. President : Here is a provision for es- 
traordinarj- expenses incun-ed in executing the 
laws of the United States. Extraordinary ex- 
penses ! Sir, beneath these specious words 
lurks the very subject on which, by a solemn 
vote of this body, I was refused a hearing. 
Here it is : no longer opeo to the charge of 
being an "abstraction,"' but actually presented 
for practical legislation ; not introduced by me, 
but by one of the important committees of the 
Senate : not brought forward weeks ago, when 
there was ample time for discussion, but only 
at this moment, without any reference to the 
late period of the session. The amendment, 
which I now offer, proposes to remove one chief 
occasion of these extraordinary expenses. 
And now, at last, among these final crowded 
days of our duties here, but at this earliest op- 
portunity, I am to be heaid; not as a favor, 
but as a right. The graceful usages of this 
body may lie abandoned, but the established 
privileges of debate cannot be a?jridged. Par- 
liamentary courtesy may be forgotten, but Par- 
liamentary law mi..*t prevail. The subject ia 
1 broadly before the Senate. By the blessing of 
, God, it .shall be discussed. 
I Sir. a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly 
j sought to secure permanence for his imperfect 
j instifcution.s, by providing that the citizen who^ 
, at any time, attempted an alteration or repeal 
of any part thcreol' should appear in the pub- 
lic assembly with a halter about his neck, 
1 ready to be drawn if his proposition failed to 
be adopted. A tyrannical spirit among us, in 
! unciin^'cious imitation of this antique and dia- 
I carded barbarism, seeks to surround an offen- 
sive institution with a similar safeguard. In the 
existing distemper of the public mind and at 
\ this present juncture, no man can enter upon 
the service which 1 now undertake, without a 
personal responsibility, such as can be sus- 
: taincd only liy that sense of duty which, under 
, God, is always our best support. That per- 
j sonal resp(iiis!l)ility I accej>t. Before the Sen- 
ate and the country let me bo hold accountable 
for this act, and for every word which 1 ut- 
I ter. 

i With me, sir, there is no alternative. Pain- 
I fully convinced of the unutterable wrongs and 
j woes of slavery: pruibuMdly believing that, ac- 
! cording to the true spirit of the Constitution 
, and the scutimeuts of the fathers, it can tiud 



BO place under our A'afioin? Government — that 
it 18 in every respect sectional, and in no respect 
national — that it is always and evcryvrhere the 
oreature and dependent of the States, and never 
anywhere the creature or dependent of the 
Nation, and that the Nation can never, by legis- 
lative or other act, impart to it any support, 
under the Constitution of the United States ; 
with these convictions. I could not allow this 
session to reach its close, without making or 
seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly 
against the usurpation, injus^tice, and cruelty, 
of the late enactment by Congress for the re- 
covery of fugitive slar-es. Full well I know, 
sir, the diiSculties of this discussion, arising 
fe*om prejudices of opinion and from adverse 
conclusions, strong and sincere as my own. 
Full well I knew that I am in a small minori- 
ty, with few here to whom I may look for sym- 
pathy er support. Full well I know that I 
must utter things unwelcome to manj^ in this 
body, which I cannot do without pain. Full 
well I know that the institution of slavery in 
our country, which I now proceed to consider, 
is as sensitive as it is powerful — possessing a 
power to shake the whole land with a sensitive- 
ness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. 
But, while these things may properly prompt 
me to caution and reserve, they cannot change 
my duty, or my determination to perfoi'ra it. 
For this I willingly forget myself, and all per- 
sonal consequences. The favor and good-will 
of m.j fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the 
Senate, sir — grateful to me as it justly is — I am 
ready, if required, to sacrifice. All that I am 
or may be, I freely offer to this cause. 

And here allow me, for one moment, to refer 
to myself and my position. Sir, 1 have never 
been a politician. The slave of principles, I 
call no party master. By sentiment, edu- 
cation, and conviction, a friend of Human 
Rights, in their utmost expansion, I have 
ever most sincerely embraced the Democrat- 
i-c Idea; not, indeed, as represented or pro- 
fessed by any party, but according to its real 
significance, as transfigured in the Declaration 
of Independence, and in the injunctions of 
Christianity. In this Idea I saw no narrow ad- ■ 
vantages merely for individuals or classes, but j 
the sovereignty of the people and the greatest 
happiness of all secured by equal laws. Amidst ' 
the vicissitudes of public affairs, I trust always ' 
to hold fast to this Idea, and to any political [ 
party which truly embraces it. I 

Party does not constrain me: nor is my in- | 
dependence lessened hj any relations to the ! 
office which gives me a title to be heard on this ^ 
floor. And here, sir, I may speak proudly. By 
no effort, by no desire of my own, I find myself 
a Senator of the United States. Never before j 
have I held public office of any kind. With • 
the ample opportunities of private life £ was 
content. No tombstone for me could bear a ! 
fiiirer inscription than this : '= Here lies one who, ' 
■without the honors or emoluments of cublic ' 



station, did soraething for his fellow man." 
From such simple aspirations I was taken away 
by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, 
and placed in this responsible post of duty, 
without personal obligation of any kind, be- 
yond what was implied in my life and publish- 
ed words. The earnest friends, by whose confi- 
dence I was first designated, asked nothing 
from me, and, throughout the long conflict 
which ended in my election, rejoiced in the po- 
sition which I most carefully guarded. To all 
my language was uniform, that 1 did not desire 
to be brought forward; that I would do nothing 
to promote the result; that I had no pledges or 
promises to offer ; that the office should seek 
me. and not I the office : and that it should find 
me in all respects an independent man, bound 
to no party and to no human being, but only, 
according to my best judgment, to act for the 
good of all. Again, sir, I speak with pride, 
both for myself and others, when I add that 
these avowals found a sympathizing response. 
j In this spirit I have come here, and in this 
spirit I shall speak to-day. 

Rejoicing in my independence and claim- 
ing nothing from party ties. I throw myself 
upon the candor and magnanimity of the Sen- 
ate. I now ask your attention ; but I trust 
not to abuse it. I may speak strongly; for 
I shall speak openly and from the strength 
of my convictions. I may speak warmly; 
for I shall speak from the heart. But in no 
event can 1 forget the amenities which be- 
long to debate, and which especially become 
this body. Slavery I must condemn with my 
whole soul ; but here I need only borrow the 
language of slaveholders themselves ; nor would 
it accord with my habits or my sense of justice 
to exhibit them as the impersonation of the in- 
stitution — Jefferson calls it the "enormity" — 
which they cherish. Of them I do not speak; 
but without fear and without favor, as without 
impeachment of any person, I assail this wrong. 
Again, sir, I may err ; but it will be with the 
Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways 
of the Republic, with its grandest names, its 
surest landmarks, and all its original altar- 
fires about me. 

And now, on the very threshold, I encounter 
the objection that there is a final settlement, in 
principle and substance, of the question of Sla- 
very, and that all discussion of it is closed. 
Both the old political parties of the country, by 
formal resolutions, have united in this declara- 
tion. On a subject which for years has agita- 
ted the public mind; which yet palpitates in 
every heart and burns on every tongue ; which, 
in its immeasurable importance, dwarfs all 
other subjects; w^hich, by its constant aud, gi- 
gantic presence, throws a shadow across these 
Halls; which at this very time calls for ap- 
propriations to meet extraordinary exponses ifc 
has caused, they have imposed the rule of si- 
lence. According to them, sir, we may speak. 



6 

of everything escept tliat alone, wliicli is most ' expressly provides against aT)rI(?g'ng freedona 
present in all our minds. ^ j of fpeeoh, it is a special outrage. In yain do 

To this combined effort I might jStly reply, ! we condemn the despotisms of Europe, -while 
that, with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges : we borrow the rigors with which they repress 
the very discussion which it pretends to forbid. ' Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power. 
Such a declaration, on the eve of an election. For myself in no factious spirit, but solemnly 
is, of course, submitted to the consideration and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Senator 
and ratification of the people. Debate, in- ! of Massachusetts, I protest against this wrong, 
quiry, discussion, are the necessary conse- ' On Slavery, as on every other subject, I claim 
quence. Silence beeomes impossible. Slavery. ' the right to be heard. That right I cannot, I 
which you profess to banish from the public will not abandon. " Give me the liberty to 
attention, openly by your invitation enters know, to utter and to argue freely, above all 



every political meeting and every political con- 
vention. Nay, at this moment it stalks into this 
Senate, crying, like the daughters of the horse- 
leech, "Give! give!" 

But no unanimity of politicians can uphold 
the baseless assumption, that a law, or any 



liberties." These are the glowing words which 
flashed from the soul of John Milton, in his 
struggles with English tyranny. With equal 
fervor they should be echosd now lij every 
American, not already a slave. 

But. sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. 



conglomerate of laws, under the name of Com- j The convictions of the heart cannot be re- 
promise, or howsoever called, is final. Nothing j pressed. The utterances of conscience must 
can be plainer than this; that, by no Parlia- j be heard. Tliey break forth with irrepressible 
mentary device or knot, can any Legislature might. As well attempt to check the tides of 
tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, so i Oceati, the currents of the Mississsppi, or the 
as to prevent the full exercise of its constitu- j rushing waters of Niagara. The discussion of 
tional powers. Each Legislature, under a juat i Slavery will proceed, wherever two or three 
sense of its responsibility, must judge for it- \ are gathered together — by the fireside, on the 
self; and, if it think proper, it may revise o? i highway, at the public meeting, in the church, 
amend, or absolutely undo the work of its pre- I The movement against Slavery is from the 
decessors. The laws of the Medes and Persians | Everlasting Arsa. Even now it is gathering 
are proverbially said to have been unalterable ; ; its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It 
but they stand forth in history as a single es- i may not yet be felt in the high places of office 
ample of such irrational defiance of the true , and power* ; but all who can put their ears 
principles of all law. I humbly to the ground, will hear and compre- 

To make a law final, so as not to be reached j hend its incessant and advancing tread. 
by Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a i 

new provision on the Constitution. Nay, more ; I The relations of the Government of the 
it gives to the law a character which the very i United States— I speak of the National Gov- 
Constitution does not possess. The wise fathers ' ernment — to Slavery, though plain and obvi- 
did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, \ ous, are constantly misunderstood. A popular 
never to grow after infancy; but, anticipating belief at this moment makes Slavery a national 
Progress, they declared expressly that their ' institution, and, of course, renders its support 
Great Act is not final. According to the Con- \ a national duty. The extravagance of this 
fititution itself, there is not one of its existing i error can hardly be surpassed. An institu- 
provisions — not even that with regard to fugi- i tion, which our fsthera most carefully omitted 
tives from labor — which may not at all times ; to name in the Constitution, which, according 
be reached by amendment, and thus be drawn I to the debates in the Convention, they refused 
into debate. This is rational and just. Sir, j to cover with any " sanction." and which, at 
nothing from man's hands, nor law, nor con- 



stitution, can be final. Truth alone is final. 

Inconsistent and absurd, this eifort is tyran- 
nical also. The responsibility for the recent 
Slave Act and for Slavery everywhere within 
the jurisdiction of Congress necessarily involves 
the right to discuss them. To separate these 
js impossible. Like the twenty-fifth rule of 
tbe House of Representatives against petitions 
on Slavery — now repealed and dishonored — 
the Compromise, as explained and urged, is a 
curtailment of the actual powers of legisla- 
tion, and a yierpetual denial of the indisputa- 
b!<: princi[)le that the right to deliliorate is co- 
ecitcnsive with the responsibility for an act. 
To sustain Slavery, it is now propo.sed to tram- 
ple on free speech. In any country tliis would 
te.ffrieyous; but here, whore the Constitution 



the original organization of the Government, 
was merely sectional, existing nowhere on the 
national territor}', is now above all other things 
blazoned as national. Its supporters plume 
themselves as national. The old political par- 
ties, while upholding it, claim to be national. 
A National Whig is simply a Slavery VVhig, 
and a National Democrat is simply a Slavery- 
Democrat, in contradistinction to all who re- 
gard Slavery as a sectional institution, within 
the exclusive control of the States, and with 
which the nation has nothing to do. 

As Slavery assumes to ]>e national, so, by an 
equally strange perversion. Frei'dom is degra- 
ded to be sectional, and all who uphold it, 
under the national Constitution, share thia 
same epithet. The honest efforts to secure its 
blessings, everywhere within the jurisdiction 



of Congress, are scouted as sectional:, and this 
cause, whicih the founders of our National 
Crovernment had so eiuch at heart, is called 
sectionalism. These terms, now belonging to 
the commocplaces of political speech, are 
-adopted and misapplied by eiost persons with- 
•out reflection. But herein is the power of Sla- 
very. According to a curious traditien of the 
French language, Louis XIV, the grand mon- 
arch, by an accidental error of speech, among 
supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun ; 
but Slavery has done more than this. It has 
changed word for word. It has taught many 
to say nati&nal, instead of eectional^ and sec- 
iional instead oi national. 

Slavery national! Sir,, this is all a mistake 
and absurdity, fit to take a place in some new 
collection of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir 
Thomas Browne, with the ancient but explo- 
ded stories, that the toad has a stone in its 
head, and that ostriches digest iron. Accord- 
ing to the true spirit of the Constitution, and 
ithe sentiments of the Fathers, Slavery and 
not Freedom is sectional, while Freedtam and 
oot Slavery i^ip.alional. On this unanswerable 
proposition I take my stand. And here com- 
mences my argument. 

The subject presents itself under two princi- 
pal heads; First, the true relations of tke Na- 
Cional Government to Slavery, wherein it will 
•appear that there is no national fountain out 
■of which Slavery can be derived, and no na- 
tional power, under the Constitution, by which 
it .can be supported. Enlightened by this gen- 
eral survey, we shall be prepared to consider, 
Secondly, the true nature nf the provision for the 
rendition of fugitives from labor, and herein 
especially the unconstitutional and offensive 
legislation of Congress in pursuance thereof. 

I. And now for the true relatkjns of the 
National Government to Slavery. These 
will be readily apparent, if we do not neglect 
well-established principles. 

If Slaverj be national, if there be any power 
in the National Government to uphold this in- 
stitution — as in the recent Slave Act — it must 
be by virtue of the Constitution. Nor can it 
be by mere inference, implication, or conjecture. 
According to the uniform admission of courts 
and jurists in Europe, again and again promul- 
gated in our country. Slavery can be derived 
only from clear and special recognition. " The 
state of Slavery," said Lord Mansfield, pro- 
nouncing judgment in the great case of Somer- 
sett, '-is of such a nature, that it is incapable 
of being introduced on any reasons moral or 
political, but only by positive law. It is so 
odious, that nothing can be suffered to suppo^rt it 
but positive law."— (HowelPs State Trials, 
vol. 20, p. 82.) And a slaveholding tribunal, 
the Supreme Court of Mississippi, adopting the 
same principle, has said : 

" Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of 
nature. It exists and can exist only through uauni- 



{Harry vs. Dccler, Walker R., 



oipal regulations.' 

42.) 

And another slaveholding tribunal, the Su- 
preme Court of Kentucky, has said: 

" We view this as a right existing by positive law 
of a municipal character, without foundation in the 
law of nature or the unwritten and common law." — 
[Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Marshall, 470.) 

Of course every power to uphold Slavery 
must have an origin as distinct as that of Sla- 
very itself Every presumption must be as 
strong against such a power as against Slavery. 
A power so peculiar and offensive, so hostile 
to reason, so repugnant to the law of nature 
and the inborn Rights of Man ; which despoils 
its victims of the fruits of their labor ; which 
substitutes concubinage for marriage ; which 
abrogates the relation of parent and child ; 
which, by a denial of education, abases the in- 
tellect, prevents a true knowledge of God, and 
murders the very soul ; which, amidst a plau- 
sible physical comfort, degrades man, created in 
the divine image, to the level of a beast; — such 
a power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyran- 
nical, so unjust, can find no place in any sys- 
tem of Government, unless by virtue o? positive 
sanction. It can spring from no doubtful 
phrases. It must be declared by unambiguous 
words, incapable of a double sense. 

Slavery, I now repeat, is not mentioned in 
the Constitution. The name Slave does not 
pollute this Charter of our Liberties. No " posi- 
tive'' language gives to Congress any power to 
make a Slave or to hunt a Slave. To find even 
any seeming sanction for either, we must travel, 
with doubtful footsteps, beyond its express let- 
ter, into the region of interpretation. But here 
are rules which cannot be disobeyed. With 
electric might for Freedom, they send a perva- 
sive influence though every provision, clause, 
and word of the Constitution. Each and all 
make Slavery impossible as a national institu- 
tion. They efface from the Constitution every 
fountain out of which it can be derived. 

Fir.it and foremost, is the Preamble. This 

discloses the prevailing objects and principles 

of the Constitution. Thisis the vestibule through 

I which all must pass, who would enter the sa- 

I cred temple. Here are the inscriptions by 

j which they are earliest impressed. Here they 

; finst catch the genius of the place. Here the- 

' proclamation of Liberty is soonest heard. '' Wo 

I the People of the United States," says the Pre- 

j amble. '• in order to form a more perfect Unica>. 

! establishjn.it ice, insure domestic tranquillity, pr». 

vide for the common defence, promote the gan^ 

eral welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty 

to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and 

establish this Constitution for the United S-tates 

of America." Thus, according to undoiiable 

words, the Constitution was ordained, aot to 

establish, secure, or sanction Slavery — nat to 

promote the special interests of slaveholders— 

not to make Slavery national, in any way, form, 

or manner; but to "establish justicCji' •' grew 



mote the general welfare/'' and "secure the 
blessings of Liberty." Here surely Liberty is 
national. 

Secondly. Next in importance to the Pream- 
ble are the explicit conlemporaneous declara- 
tions in the Convention which framed the Con- 
stitution, and elsewhere, expressed in different 
forms of language, but all tending to the same 
conclusion. By the Preamble, the Constitation 
speaks for Freedom. By these declarations, 
the Fathers speak as the Constitution speaks. 
Early in the Convention, Gouverneur Morris, 
of Pennsylvania, broke forth in the language of 
an Abolitionist: ^He never would concur in 
upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious 
institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the 
State where it prevailed.' Oliver Ellsworth, of 
Connecticut, said : "The morality or wisdom of 
Slavery are considerations belonging to the 
States themselves." According to him, Slavery 
was sectional. 

At a later day, a discussion ensued on the 
clause touching the African slave trade, which 
reveals the definitive purposes of the Conven- 
tion. From the report of Mr. Madison we 
learn what was said. Elbridge Gerry, of Mas- 
sachusetts, '• thought we had nothing to do 
with the conduct of the States as to Slavery, 
but we ought to he careful not to give any sane- 
tion to it.'^ According to these words, he re- 
garded Slavery as sectional, and would not 
make it national. Roger Sherman, of Con- 
necticut, " was opposed to any tax on slaves 
imported, as making tlie matter worse, because 
it implied they ivere property.''^ He would not 
have Slavery national. After debate, the sub- 
'. ^t was committed to a committee of eleven, 
^ I" subsequently reported a substitute, au- 
S^^ • ig " a tax on such migration or import- 
Sv9nzK ^ ^_^^^ ^^^^ exceeding the average of du- 
tiTlLidor. i^nports." This language, classify- 
Zies lata or, ^.^j^ merchandise, seemed to imply 
mg percuss that they were proper/3/. Mr 
a recogmtion^^^ ^^ declared himself 'Igainst 

thisTart, as ackn^^^'^^^'if'S^nen to be property 
tms p^i , ^^^^j^ ^j^^jjjp tjje character of 

K" 'Mr G^h...- 'Hho.ght M. Sherman 
should consider the daty not as implying that 
Biiuuivx ^ discouragement to 
slaves are prop rt^"^^^ ^l^ .^ 
thfi imoortatioa ot tnerv'- ^f\ ) 



*^d vSS:aa"^^«^'^/A,.^^gA^ v< wrong toad- 
Jtii the Con!tlt^U^o^l 'At^'-'^'^J/^lf l'"': f"!?f 



jnim .) 

, the Conslituuon . 

be properly in »i«n." Aft^f discission, it was 
finiuy agreed to make the clause read. 

"■L'at a tax or .luty may bo lmVM<>d on such nn- 
poridon, not cvccedin. ton a.l)ur.s Jor <'ach person.^ 
The diOiculty seemed then to bo removed, and 
the wbole cluu.se was adoptijd. 1 his rec- 
ord demwstratcs that the word -' persons" was 
cmDlovcd ia order to show that sUvcs, every- 
where un dew the Constitution, were always to 
be regarded a« persons, and not as property, :in<l 
thus to cxcUidfc /"roin the Constitution all idea 
that there can b.; in'opcrty in man. Hemen. ber 
^9^'^\\ thyt Mr. .^'.ivovnau was oppis^jd to the 



clause in its original form, "as acknowledging 
men to be properly/'' that Mr. Madison was 
also opposed to it, because he " thought it 
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea 
that there could be property in man;" and 
that, after these objections, the clause was so 
amended as to exclude the idea. Bat Slavery 
cannot be national, unless this idea is distinct- 
ly and unequivocally admitted' into the Consti- 
tution. 

Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Gon- 
vention, to which the Constitntion, when com- 
pleted, was submitted for ratification, a veteran 
of the Revolution, General Heath, openly de- 
clared that, according to his view, SlaTery wa& 
sectional, and not national. His language was 
pointed. " I apprehend," he says, " that it is 
not in our power to do anything for or against 
those who are in Slavery in the Southern States. 
No gentleman within these walls detests every 
idea of Slavery more than I do ; it is generally 
detested by the people of this Commonwealth ; 
and I ardently hope the time will soon come, 
when our brethren in the Southern States will 
view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to* 
this we have no right to compel them. Twc 
questions naturally arise: If ire ratify the 
Constitution., shall ice do anything by our act to 
hold the blacks in Slavery — or shall we become 
partakers of other men^s sins ? I think neither 
of them.'^ 

Afterwards, in the first Congress mider the 
Constitution, on a motion, which was much de- 
bated, to introduce into the Impost Fill a duty 
on the importation of slaves, the same Roger 
Sherman, who in the National Convention 
had opposed the idea of property in man, au- 
thoritatiTely exposed the true relations of the 
Constitution to Slavery. His language was, 
that " the Constitution does not consider these 
persons as property ; it speaks of them as per- 
sons." 

Thus distinctly and constantly, from the very 
lips of the framers of the Constitution, we learn 
the falsehood of the recent assumptions in favor 
of Slavery and in derogation of Freedom. 

Thirdly. According to a familiar rule of in- 
terpretation, all laws concerning the same mat- 
ter, in pari materia, are to be construed to- 
gether. By the same reason, the grand politi- 
cal acts of the Nation are to be construed together, 
giving and receiving light from each other. 
Earlier than the Constitution wa.s the Declara- 
tion of Independence, embodying, in immortal 
words, those prinuil truths to wliicb our country 
pledged itself with its baptismal vows as a Na- 
tion. "We hold these truths to be self-evi- 
dent,'' says the Nation, '-that all men are cre- 
ated equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unaliona])le rights : that 
among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
hapi>iiiess ; that to secure iliose rights govern- 
ments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the 
governed.'' But this docs not stand alone. 



There is another national act of similar import. 
On the successful close of the Revolution, the 
Continental Congress, in an address to the 
people, repeated the same loftj? truth. " Let it 
be remembered," said the Nation again, ''that 
it has ever been the pride and the boast of 
America, that the rights for which she has con- 
tended were the rights of human nature. By 
the blessing of the Author of these lights, they 
have prevailed over all opposition, and form 
THE BASIS of thirteen independent States.-' 
Such were the aets of the Nation in its united 
capacity. Whatever may be the privileges of 
States in their individual capacities, within 
their several local jurisdictions, no power can 
be attributed to the Nation, in the absence of 
positive, unequivocal grant, inconsistent with 
these two national declarations. Here, sir, is 
the national heart, the national soul, the na- 
tional will, the national voice, which must in- 
spire our interpretation of the Constitution, and 
enter into and diffuse itself through all the na- 
tional legislation. Thus again is Freedom 
national. 

Fourthly. Beyond the.se is a principle of 
the common law, clear and indisputable, a 
supreme rule of interpretation from which in 
this case there can lie no appeal. In any ques- 
tion under the Constitution every u'ord is to be 
comtrucd in favor of liberty. This rule, which 
commends itself to the natural reason, is sus- 
tained by time-honored maxims of our early 
jurisprudence. Blackstone aptl;/ expresses it, 
when he says, that "the law is always ready to 
catch at anything in fovor of liberty.'' — (2. 
Black. Com., 94.) The rule is repeated in va- 
rious forms. Favores ampliandi sunt; odia 
restringenda. Favors are to be amplified ; 
hateful things to be restrained. Lex Anglim 
est lex misericordics. The law of England is 
a law of mercy. Anglice jura in omni cas\i 
libertati dant favorcm. The laws of England in 
every case shew favor to liberty. And this 
sentiment breaks forth in natural, though in- 
tense, force, in the maxim : Impius et crudclis 
judicandus est qui libertati nonfavet. He is to 
be adjudged impious and cruel who does not 
favor liberty. Reading the Constitution in the 
admonition of these rules, again I say Freedom 
is national. 

Fifthly. From a learned judge of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, in an opinion 
of the Court, we derive the same lesson. In 
considering the question, whether a State can 
prohibit the importation of slaves as merchan- 
dize, and whether Congress, in the exercise of 
its power to regulate commerce among the 
States, can interfere with the slave-trade be- 
tween the States, a principle has been enun- 
ciated, whicli, while protecting the trade from 
any intervention of Congress, declares openly 
that the Constitution acts upon no man as 
property. iVIr. Justice JVIcLean says: ''If slaves 
are considered in some of the States as mcr- 
ehandise, that cannot divest them of the lead- 



ing and controlling quality of persons by which 
they are designated in the Constitution. The 
character of property is given them by the lo- 
cal law. This law is respected, and all rights 
under it are protected by the Federal authori- 
ties; but the Constitution acts upon slaves as 
VEnsoss, and not as property." * * * "The 
power over Slavery belongs to the States re- 
spectively. It is local in its character, and in 
its effects." — (Groves vs. Slaughter, 15 Peters 
R.. .507). Here again Slavery is sectional, 
while Freedom is national. 

Sir, such briefly are the rules of interpreta- 
tion which, as applied to the Constitution, fill 
it with the breath of Freedom, 

Driving fiir off each thing of sin and guilt. 

To the history and prevailing se Uiments of the 
times we may turn for further assurance. In 
the spirit of Freedom the Constitution was 
formed. In this spirit our Fathers always spoke 
and acted. In this spirit the National Gov- 
ernment was first organized under Washing- 
ton. And here I recall a scene, in itself a 
touchstone of the period, and an example for 
us, upon which we may look with pure na- 
tional pride, while we learn anew the relations 
of the National Government to Slavery. 

The Revolution had been accomplished. The 
feeble Government of the Confederation had 
passed away. The Constitution, slowly ma- 
tured in a National Convention, discussed be- 
fore the people, defended by masterly pens, had 
been already adopted. The thirteen States 
stood forth a nation, wherein was unitjr with- 
out consohdation, and diversity without dis- 
cord. The hopes of all were anxiously hang- 
ing upon the new order of things and tlie 
mighty procession of events. With signal 
unanimity Washington was chosen President. 
Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, he re- 
paired to New York, where the first Congress 
had already commenced its session, to assume 
his place as elected Chief of the Republic. 
On the thirtieth of April, 1789, the organiza- 
tion of the Government was completed by his 
inauguration. Entering the Senate Cham])er, 
where the two Houses were assembled, he was 
informed that they awaited his readiness to re- 
ceive the oath of office. W^ithout delay, at- 
tended by the Senators and Representatives, 
with friends and men of mark gathered about 
him, he moved to the balcony in front of the 
edifice. A countless multitude, tlironging the 
open street, and eagerly watching this great es- 
pousal, 

AVith r(!vcrenec look on hisi majpstio face, 
Proud to bo less, but of his godlilvo race. 

The oath was administered by the Chancellor 
of New York. At this time, and in this pres- 
ence, beneath the uncovered heavens, Wa,sli- 
ington first took this vow upon his lips: ''I do 
solemnly swear that I will faitlifully execute 
the office of President of the United States, and; 
will, to the best of my ability', preserve, pro- 



10 

tect, and defend the Constitution of the United , lives and recorded words now rise in judg- 
States." , ment. There was John Adams, the Vice Pres- 

Over the President, on this high occasion. | ident — great vind'cator and final negotiator 
floated the National Flag, with its stripes of red of our national independence — whose soul, 
and its stars on a field of blue. As his patriot Naming with freedom, hroke forth in the early 
eyes rested upon the glowing ensign, what cur- declaration that "consenting to Slavery is a 
rents must have rushed swiftly through his sacrilegious hreach of trust," and whose immiti- 
soul! In the early days of the Revolution, in gable hostility to this wrong has been made im- 
those darkest hours about Boston, after the bat- mortal in his descendants. There also was a 
tie of Banker Hill, and before the Declaration companion in aims and attached friend, of in- 
of Independence, the thirteen stripes had been comparable genius, the yet youthful Hamilton^ 



first unfurled by him, as the emblem of Union 
among the Colonies for the sake of Freedom. 
By him, at that time, they had been named the 



who, as a member of the Abolition Society of 
New York, had only recently united in a 
solemn petition for those who, '-'though free hy 



Union Flag. Trial, struggle, and war, were ' the Jav:s of God. are held in Slavery fci/ fhe Jaws 
now ended, and the Union, which they first of the State." There, too, was a noble spirit, 
heralded, was unalterably established. To ' the ornament of his country, the exemplar of 



every beholder these memories nuist have been 
full of pride and consolation. But looking 
back upon the scene, there is one circumstance 
which, more than all its other associations, 
fills the soul — more even than the suggestions 
of Union which I prize so much. Ax this 
mo.ment, when washington took his fikst 
oath to suprort the constitution of the 
United States, the National Ensign, no- 



courage, truth, and virtue, who, like the sun, 
ever held an unerring course. John Jay. Fill- 
ing the important post of Minister of Foreign 
Affairs under the Confederation, he found time 
to organize the Abolition Society of New York, 
and to act as its President until, by the nomi- 
nation of AVashington, he became Chief Justice 
of the United States. In his sight Slavery was 
an "iniquity," -a sin of crimson dj'e,"' ajjainst 



where within the National territory, ! which ministers of the gospel should testify, and 
COVERED a single SLAVE. Then, indeed, was : which the Government should seek in every way 

Slavery sectional and Freedom national. ' to abolish. "Were I in the Legislature,"' he 

On the sea, an execrable piracy, the trade in wrote, "I would present a bill for tliis purpose 

elaA'cs, Avas still, to the national scandal, tole- with great care, and I would never cease moving 

rated under the national flag. In the States, it till it became a law or I ceased to be a msm- 
as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter her. Till America comes into this measure, 

of local laws. Slavery unhappily found a home, her prayers to Heaven will be impious."' 

But in the only territories at this time belong- But they were not alone. The convictions 

ing to the Nation, the broad region of the North- and earnest aspirations v{ the country were 

west, it had already, by the Ordinance of Free- with them. At the North these were broad 

dom, been made impossible, even before the and general. At the South they found fervid 
adoption of the Constitution. The District of utterance from slaveholders. By early and 

Columbia, with its fatal incumbrance, had not precocious efibrts for "total em.^ncipation,'^ the 

yet been acquired. : Author of the Declaration of Independence 

The Government thus organized was Anti- placed himself ioremo.st among the Abolition- 
Slavery in character. Washington was a slave- ists of the land. In language now familiar to 
holder; but it would be unjust to his memory all, and which can never die, he perpetually 
not to say that he was an Abolitionist also, denounced Slavery. He exposed its pernicious 
His opinions do not admit of question. Only a influences upon master as well as slave; de- 
short time before the formation of the National clared that the love of justice and the love of 
Constitution, he had declared, )iy letter, "that country pleaded equally for the slave, and that 
it was among his first wishes to see some y)lan the "abolition of domestic slavery was the 
adopted by which Slavery may be abdi-hed greatest object of desire.'' He believed that 
by law;" and again, in another letter, "that, the "sacred side was gaining daily recruits,'^ 
in support of any legislative measure for the and confidently looked to the young for the 
abolition of slavery, his suffrage should not be accomphshmcfit of this good work. Jn fitful 
wanting:'' and still further, in conversation synijiathy with Jefferson was another honored 
with a distinguished European Abolitionist, a son of Vu-ginia, the Orator of Liberty, Patrick 
travelling propagtimlist of Freedom, Brissot do Henry, who, while confessing that he was a 
Warvilh'. recently welcomed to Mount Vernon, master of slaves, said : "1 will not, I cannot 
lie had openly announced, that to promote this justify it. However culpalile my conduct, I 
object in Virginia, "he desired the formation will so far pay my devoir to virtue, as to own 
of a Sociktv, and that he would second it."' the excellence and rectitude of her precepta, 
By this authentic testimony, he takes his place and lament roy want of conformitv t« them.'* 
witii the early p itrons ol' Abolition socuoties. At this very period, in the Legishiture of Mary- 

By the side of Washington, as standing be- land, on a bill for the relief of ot.pr(>s.sed slaves, 

neath the national flag he swore to support a voung man, afterwards by his consummate 

the Costnitution, were illustrious men, whose learning and forensic powt-vs the acknowlcged 



11 



head of the American bar, William Pin'ktiey, 
in a speech of earnest, truthful eloquence — bet- 
ter far for his memory than his transcendent 
professional fame — branded Slavery as iniqui- 
tous and most dishonorable : " "founded in a 
disgraceful traffic;" "as shameful in its con- 
tinuance as in its origin: " and he openly de- 
clared, that, "by the eternal principles of nat- 
ural justice, no master in the State has a right 
to hold his slave in bondage a single hour." 

Thus at this time spoke the Nation. The 
Church also joined its voice. A.nd here, amidst 
the diversities of religious faith, it is instructive 
to observe the general accord. The Quakersfirst 
bore their testimony. At the adoption of the 
Constitution their wliole body, under the early 
teaching of George Fox, and by the crowning 
exertions ofBenezet and Woolman, had beccaio 
an organized band of Abolitionists, penetrated 
"by the conviction that it was unlawful to hold 
a fellow-man in bondage. The Methodists, 
numerous, earnest, and faithful, never ceased by 
their preachers to proclaim the same truth. 
Their rules in 1788 denounced in formal lan- 
guage "the buying or selling of bodies and 
souls of men, women, and children, with an in- 
tention to enslave them." The words of their 
great apostle, John Wesley, were constantly 
repeated. On the eve of the National Conven- 
tion, the burning tract was circulated in which 
he exposes American slavery as the " vilest " of 
the world — "such Slavery as is not found 
among the Turks at Algiers" — and, after de- 
claring ''liberty the birthright of every human 
creature, of which no human law can deprive 
him," he pleads: "Jf, therefore, you have any 
regard to justice, (to say nothing of Ksercy or 
the revealed law of God.) render unto all their 
due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that 
is, to every child of man. to every partaker of 
human nature." At the same time, the Pres- 
byterians, a powerful religious body, inspired 
by the principles of iohn Calvin, in more mod- 
erate language, but by a public act, recorded 
their judgment, recommending "to all the peo- 
ple under their care to use the most prudent 
saieasures consistent with the interest and 
the state f>f civil society, to procure eventually 
the final i&boUtion of Slavery in America.-^ The 
Congregationalistsof Mew England, also of the 
faith of lohn Calvin, and with the hatred of 
Slavery belonging to the great non-conformist, 
Richard Baxter, were sternly united against 
this wrong. As early as 1776, Samuel Hop- 
kins, their eminent leader and divine, published 
his tract showing it to be the Duty and Inter- 
terest of the American States to Emancipate 
all their African slaves, and declaring that 
"Slavery is in every instance wrong, unright- 
eous, and oppressive — a very great and crying 
sin — there being nothing of the kind equal to 
it on the face of the earth." And, in 1791, 
shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, 
the second Jonathan Edwards, a twice-honored 
came, in an elaborate discourse often published. 



called upon his country, " in the present blaze 
of light" on the injustice of Slavery, to prepare 
the way for "its total abolition!" This he 
gladly thought at hand. "If Ave judge of the fu- 
ture by the past," said the celebrated preacher, 
" within fifty years from this time, it Avill be 
as shameful for a man to hold a nogro slave as 
to be guilty of common robbery or theft." 

Thus, at this time, the Church, in harmony 
with the Nation, by its leading denominations, 
Quakers, Methodists, Prcsl;ytcrians, and Con- 
gregationalists, thundered against Slavery. 
The CoLLEiiEs were in unison with the Church. 
Harvard University spoke by the voice of Mas- 
sachusetts, which had already abolished Slave- 
ry. Dartmouth College, by one of its learned 
professors, claimed for the slaves "equal privi- 
leges with the whites." Yule College, by its 
President, the eminent divine. Ezra Stiles, be- 
came the head of the Abolition Society of Con- 
necticut. And the University of William and 
Mary, in Virginia, testified its sympathy with 
this cause at this very time, by conferring upon 
Granville Sharp, the acknowledged chief of 
British Abolitionists, the honorary degree of 
Doctor of Laws. 

The Literature of the land, such as then 
existed, agreed with the Nation, the Church 
and the College. Franklin, in the last literary 
labor of his life; Jefferson, in his Notes on Vir- 
ginia.; Barlow, in his measured verse; Rush, in 
a work which inspired the praise of Clark- 
son; the ingenious author of the Algerine 
Captive — the earliest American novel, and 
though now but little known, one of the earli- 
est American books republished in London — 
were all moved by the contemplation of Slave- 
ry. "If our fellow-citizens of the Southern 
States are deaf to the pleadings of nature," the 
latter exclaims in his work, "I will conjure 
them, for the sake of consistency, to cease to 
deprive their fellow-creatures of freedom, which 
their writers, their orators, representatives, and 
senators, and even their constitution of Gov- 
ernment, have declared to be the inalienable 
birthright of man." A female writer and poet, 
earliest in our country among the graceful 
throng, Sarah Wentworth Morton, at the veiy 
period of the National Convention, admired by 
the polite society in which she lived, poured 
forth her sympathies also. The generous la- 
bors of John Jay in behalf of the crushed Afri- 
can inspired her muse ; and in another poem, 
commemorating a slave who fell while vindi- 
cating his Freedom, she rendered a truthful 
homage to his inaheoable rights, in words 
which I now quote as part of the testinxony of 
the times: 

" Dock not the voieo of reason erj'? 

'Chiiin the first right that iiaturi gave; 

From the rod scourge of bondage fly ; 
Nor deign to live a burdened slave.' " 

Such, sir, at the adoption of the Constitution 
and at the first organization of the National 
Government, was the out-spoken, unequivocal 



12 

heart of the country. Slavery was abhorred. I of the power vested' lu you for BISCOTTRAGING 
Like the slave trade, it was regarded as tem- | «^"«''y , speci<^s of traffic in 'the 2>ersons of our fellovr 

porary; and, Ly many, it was supposed that|'"''T'' , , j i t 1.1, i i l 

r. 1 1 V .u 1- 4. i-u A iv ' Important words In themselves a key-note 

they would both disappear togother. As the ( <• »u *• -c u- -n i i- ■■ 

•', , ,. i. ii • f 01 the times, rrom his ajraive Irankhn seems 

oracles ceased or grew mute at the cominor of ^^ '^ ^ , . w 

Christ, and a voice was heard crying to mari- i '*'" ^\^f "P«" ^«°^'T' '', f ^ '" ^^' '■"'^ 

ners at sea, ''Great Pan is dead,"' so, at this ' ':^!^ll,!^'JT""'^'''6^'^^^^ I'J^^^'^^^^ 

time, Slavery became dumb, and its death 

seemed to be near. Voices of Freedom filled 



the air. The patriot, the Christian, the scholar, 
the writer, the poet, vied in loyalty to this 
cause. All were Abolitionists. 

Glance now at the earliest Congress under 
the Constitution. From various quarters me- 
morials were presented to this body against 
Slavery. Among tlie.se was one from the Abo- 



Slavery : and, in making this prayer, he pro- 
claims the true national p&licy of the Fathers. 
Not encouragement, but discouragement of 
Slavery was their rule. 

Sir, enough has been said to show the senti- 
ment M'hich. like a vital air, surrounded the 
National Government as ii stepped into being. 
In the f;ice of this history^ and in the absence 
of any positive sanction, it is absurd to suppose 
that Slavery, which under the Confederation 



national institution. Our fathers did not say. 
with the apostate angel. "Evil, be thou my 



lition Society of Virginia, wherein Slavery is ; ^as merely sectional, was now constituted a 
pronounced •' not only an odious degradation, ' 
but an outrageous violation of one of the most 

essential rights of human nature, and utterly i good!"' In a different spirit they cried out to 
repugnant to the precepts of the GospoU' i Slavery, '• Get thee behind me, Satan ! '^ 
Still another, of a more miportant character. ' But there is yet another link in the argument, 
came from the Abolition Society of Pennsylva- ; Jq the discussions which took place in the 
ma, and was signed by Benjamin Franklin, as ; local conventions on the adoption of the Con- 
President. This venerable man, whose active \ stitution, a sensitive desire was manifested to 
life had been devoted to the welfare of man- | surround all persons under the Constitution 
kind at home and abroad— who, both as phi- I ^vith additional safeguards. Fears were ex- 
losopher and statesman, had arrested the ad- j pressed from the supposed indefiniteness of 
miration of the world— who had ravished the | some of the powers conceded to the National 
lightning from the skies and the sceptre from Government, and also from the absence »f a 
a tyrant— who, as a member of the Continental ! Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, on ratifying 
Congress, had set his name to the Declaration ■ the Constitution, proposed a series of amend- 
of Independence, and, as a member of the Na- : nients, at the head of which was thi.s. charac- 
tional Convention, had again set his name to : terized by Samuel Adams, in the Convention, 
the Constitution — in whom more, perhaps, than ' as '-a summary of a Bill of Rights: "■ 
in any other person, was embodied the true { .< ^hat it l,o e.-^j-lieitlv dedarod, t">at all powers not 
spirit of American institutidns, at once practi- ; expressly delegated by "the aforesaid Constitution ar« 
cal and humane — than whom no one could be j reaervcd" to the several States, to be by them exer- 
more familiar with the purposes and aspira- { t'ised."' 

tions of the founders — this veteran, eighty-four i Virginia, South Carolina, and North Caro- 
ycars of age, within a few months of his death, j lina, with minorities in Pennsylvania and i\la- 
now appeared by petition at the bar of that ryland, united in this proposition. In pursu- 
Congress, whose powers he had hel[)cd to de- ance of these recommendations, the fir.st Con- 
line and establish. This was the last ptJitical gress presented for adojition the following arti- 
act of his long life. Listen now to the prayer cle, which, being ratiticd by a proper number 
of Franklin: \ of States, became a part of the Constitution, as 

-Your mcmoriali..t.s particularly cnffagcd in at- j ^'^^ ^^th amendment: 
tending to tlio distresses arising from Slavery, b«- 1 " The powers not delegated to the United States by 
lievc it to be their indispensable duty to present this ! the Constitution, nor prohiI>ited by it to the States, 
subject to your notice. They i)ave observed with arc reserved to the States respectively, or to the pco- 
real satisfaction that many important and salutary , pie."' 

powers arc vested in you for jiromoting the welfare Stronger words could not be employed to 
and secaring the bles.,ings ofliberty to the poopio of 1;^^;^ ,j,^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ j,,^ Constitution,"and to 
the Lnited htatea : and as thev conceive that these . .. . ' 1 r n ^- r .-, 

protect to jieople Irom all assunijitions or the 

National Government, particularly in deroga- 
tion of Frvedoin. Its guardian cliaracter com- 
mended it to the sagacious mind of Jeiferson, 
who sa'd: '• I consider the foundation corner- 
stone of the Constitution of the United States 
to Ite laid upon the tentii articli- of the amend- 
ments.'' And Samuel Adams, ever watchful 



blessings ouglit rightfully to beuihninistered, irillioiii 
distiiu-lioii. uf colur, to all dcseriptioius of peoijlc. .so 
tltn/ iinliil^c. thrill srtufs in the jilni.iiiii^ ixjiirlutlim, 
ttiiil luitliiii^ vlili'h nin he. iloiii; for ihr rtliif of the 
iiiihiippy ohjrrls of ihiir rare, irill he eitliir omitted or 
diliiiird." "Under these iniprc.«.''ions, they earnestly 
entreat your serious attention to the subject of Sla- 
very ; lluil yon irill lie plcjsiil to cuuiitciuiiice the res- 
torulioii of lihertfi to those uiiluipjiy iiuii, irho dloin', 

in this l.nid ofFreedoiii, are dc-;n,d,d into perpetiuil for Freedom, said : " It r(ni..ve> a doubt which 
MW,,,^^ and who, arrudsyho general joy of surrou^ j entertained respecting the matter, 

ing freemen, are groaning in servile subjection : that , •' . .\ l ■!• ^ 11 

you will promote mercy and justice tow.-irds this dis- ^nd gives a.sstjrancc that, if any law made by 
tressed race and //«/« yon uill stejj lo t/ic Lay verge , the Federal Government sh:dl be extended be- 



13 

yon d the power granted by the Constitntinn. j "'N'o pn-snn shall he deprived of life, liberty, or 
and inconsistent with the Constitution of this | Property, without due process of law." 
State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the Under this a}gis the liberty of every person 
courts of law to be void.^ | within the national jurisdiction is unequivo- 

Beyond all question the National Govern- cally placed. I say of every person. Of this 
ment, ordained by the Constitution, is not gen- there can he no question. The word " person " 
eral or universal; but speci.al and particular. ' in the Constitution embraces every human 
It is a Government of limited powers. It has being within its sphere, whether Caucasian, 
no power which is not delegated. Especially , Indian, or African, from the President to the 
is this, clear with regard to an institution like slave. Show me a person, no matter what his 
Slavery. The Constitution contains no power condition, or race, or color, within the national 
to make a King or to support kingly rule, jurisdiction, and I confidently claim for him 
With similar reason it may be said, that it ; this protection. The natural meaning of the 
contains no power to make a slave or to sup- ! clause is clear, but a single fact of its history 
port a sjstera of Slavery. The absence of all places it in the broad light of noon. As origi- 
sueh power is hardly more clear in one case : nally recommended by North Carolina and 
than in the other. But if there be no such ! Virginia, it was restrained to the freeman. Its 
power, all national legislation upholding Sla- language was, '• No freeman ought to be de- 
very must be unconstitutional and void. The ■ prived of his life, liberty., or property, but by 
stream cannot be higher than the fountain- | the law of the land." In rejecting this limita- 
head. Nay, more: nothing can come out 0/ [ tion, the authors of the amendment revealed 
nothing ; the stream cannot exist, if there be their purpose, that no person, under the Na- 
Tio springs from which it is fed. ! tional Government, of whatever character. 

At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of shall be deprived of liberty without due process 
clearness, review now this argument, and of law: that is, without due presentment, in- 
gather it together. Considering that Slavery ' dictment, or other judicial proceedings. Here 
is of such an offensive character that it can j by this Amendment is an express guaranty of 
find sanction only in •■ positive law,"^ and that j Personal Liberty, and an express prohibition 
it has no such -positive" sanction in the Con- ; against its invasion anywhere, at least within 
etitution ; that the Constitution, according to | the national jurisdiction. 

its Preamble, was ordained ^'to establish jus- ! Sir, apply these principles, and Slavery will 
tice" and "secure the blessings of liberty:"' ! again be as when Washington took his first 
that, in the Convention which framed it, and oath as President, The Union Flag of the Re- 
also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not ! public will become once more the flag of Free- 
to sanction Slavery: that, according to the dom, and at all points within the national ju- 
Declaration of Independence and the Address j risdiction will refuse to cover a slave. Beneath its 
of the Continental Congress, the Nation was j beneficent folds, wherever it is carried, on land 
dedicated to "liberty" and the '' rights of hu- or sea, Slavery will disappear, like darkness 
man nature;" that, according to the principles | under the arrows of the ascending sun — like 
of the common law, the Constitution must be ' the Spirit of Evil before the Angel of the 
interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually, j Lord. 

for Freedom: that, according to the decision In all national territories Slavery will be 
of the Supreme Court, it acts upon slaves, not ' impossible. 

as property^ but as persons; that, at the first ' On the high seas, under the national flag, 
organization of the National Government under | Slavery will be impossible. 
Washington, Slavery had no national favor, | In the District of Columbia Slavery will in- 
and existed nowhere on the national territo- ' stantly cease. 

ry. beneath the national flag, but was openly ! Inspired by these principles. Congress can 
condemned by the Nation, the Church, the give no sanction to Slavery by the admission 
Colleges, and "Literature of the time; and, final- 1 of new Slave States. 

ly, that, according to an Amendment of the j Nowhere under the Constitution, can the 
Constitution, the National Government can only I Nation, by legislation or otherwise, support 
exercise powers delegated to it. among which 1 Slavery, hunt slaves, or hold property in man. 
there is none to support Slavery ; considering Sach, sir, are my sincere convictions. Ac- 
these things, sir, it is impossible to avoid the ' cording to the Constitution, as I understand 
single conclusion that Slavery is in no respect j it, in the light of the Past and of its true prln- 
a national institution, and that the Constitu- ciplcs, there is no other conclusion which is 
tion nowhere upholds property in man. | rational or tenable; which does not defy the 

Bat there is one other special provision of the ; authoritative rules of interpretation; which 
Constitution, which I have reserved to this stage, does not falsify indisputable facts of hi.story; 
not so much from its superior importance, but [ which does not affront the public opinion in 
because it may fitly stand by itself. This alone, which it had its birth ; and which does not dis- 
if practically applied, would carry Freedom to honor the memory of the Fathers. And yet 
all within its influence. It is an amendment these convictions are now placed under formal 
proposed bj the first Congress, as follows: 1 ban by politicians of the hour. The generous 



14 



sentiments which filled the early patriots, and 
which impressed upon the GoTernment they 
founded, as upon the coin they circulated, the 
image and superscription of Liberty, have 
lost their power. The slave-masters, few in 
number, amotinting to about 300,000, accord- 
ing to the recent census, have succeeded in 
dictating the policy of the National Govern- 
pient, and have written Slavery on its front. 
And now an arrogant and unrelenting ostra- 
cism is applied, not only to all who express 
themselves against Slavery, but to every man 
Avho is unwilling to be the menial of Slavery. 
A novel test for office is introduced, which 
would have excluded all the Fathers of the 
Republic — eV^n Washington, Jefferson, and 
Franklin ! Yes, sir. Startling it may be; but 
indisputable. Could these revered demigods 
of history once again descend upon earth, 
and mingle in our affairs, not one of them 
could receive a nomination from the National 
Convention of either of the two old political 
parties ! Out of the convictions of their hearts 
and the utterances of their lips against Sla- 
very they would be condemned. 

This single fact reveals the extent to which 
the National Government has departed from 
its true course and its great examples. For 
myself, I know no better aim under the Con- 
stitution, than to bring the Government back 
to the pi-ecisc po.-ition on this question which 
it occupied on the auspicious morning of its 
first organization under Washington ; 

Cursus iterare 

Rulictos; 

that the sentiments of the Fathers may again 
prevail with our rulers, and that the National 
Flag may nowhere shelter slavery. 

To such as count this aspiration unreasona- 
ble let me commend a renowned and life-giving 
precedent of English history. As early as the 
days of Queen Elizabeth, a courtier had boast- 
ed that the air of England was too pure for a 
slave to breathe, and the common law was said 
to forbid Slavery. And yet in the face of this 
vaunt, kindred to that of our Fathers, and so 
truly honorable, .«laves were introduced from 
the West Indies. The custom of slavery grad- 
ually prevailed. Its positive legality was af- 
firmed, in profcHsional ojtinions, ])y two eminent 
lawyers, Talbot and Vorke, each afterwards 
Lord Chancellor. It was also affirmed on the 
bench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke. Eng- 
land was already a Slave State. The follow- 
ing advertisement, copied from a London news- 
paper, the Pvhlic Advertiser, of Nov. 22d, 
17'39. shews that the journals there were dis- 
figured as some of ours, even in the District of 
Columbia: 

" To bo S()]<\, a black girl, tho property of J. B., 
cloven 3'(.'ars of ag«, who is cxtroinoly liandy, works 
at hiM- norillc t'llerably, and spt-aks Kn;;li>>h pi^rfeotly 
W'^11 ; is uf an excclluiit Icmmjilt ami willing di.'iimsi- 
tii-ii. Emiuiru of her Owner at tlji' Aiigtd Inn, bciiiud 
Si. Cluiuunt'a Church, ia the Strand." 



At last, only three years after this adver- 
tisement, in 1772, the single question of the le- 
gality of Slavery was presented to Lord Mans- 
field, on a writ of Habeas Corpus. A poor ne- 
gro, named Somersett, brought to England an 
a slave, became ill, and with an inhumanity 
disgraceful even to slavery, was turned adrift 
upon the world. Through the charity of an 
estimable man, the eminent Abolitionist, Gran- 
ville Sharpe. he was restored to health, when 
his unfeeling and avaricious master again 
claimed him as a bondman. The claim was 
repelled. After an elaborate and protracted 
discussion in Westminster Hall, marked by 
rare learning and ability, Lord Mansfield, with 
discreditable reluctance, sullying his great ju- 
dicial name, but in trembling obedience to the 
genius of the British Constitution, pronounced 
a decree which made the early boast a practi- 
cal verity, and rendered Slavery lor ever impos- 
silde in England. More than fifteen thousand 
persons, at that time held as slaves in English 
air — four times as many as arc now found in 
this District — stepped forth in the happiness 
and dignity of freemen. 

With this guiding example let us sot des- 
pair. The time will yet come when the boasts 
of our Fathers will be made a practical verity 
also, and Court or Congress, in the spirit of 
this British judgment, will proudly declare 
that nowhere under the Constitution can man 
hold property in man. For the Kepublic such 
a decree will be the way of peace and safety. 
As Slavery is banished from the national ju- 
risdiction, it will cease to vex our national 
politics. It may linger in the States as a lo- 
cal institution ; but it will no longer engender 
national animosities, when it no longer de- 
mands national support. 

II. From this general review of the relations 
of the National Government to Slavery, s 
pass to the consideration of the true nature 

OF THE PROVISION FOR THE SURRENUER OF FU- 
GITIVES FROM LAROR, embracing an examina- 
tion of this provision in the Constitution, and 
especially of the recent act of Congress in pur- 
suance thereof And here, as I begin this dis- 
cus.^ion, let me liespeak anew your candor. Not 
in prejudice, but in the light of history and of 
reason, let us consider this subject. The way 
will then be easy and the conclusion certain. 

Much error arises from the exaggerated im- 
portance now attached to this provision, and 
from the assumptions with regard to its origin 
and primitive character. It is often asserted 
that it was suggested l-y some special difficulty, 
which had become practically and extensively 
felt, anterior to the Constitution. But this is 
one of the myths or fables with \\hieh tlio sup- 
porters of Slavery have surroiuidcd their false 
god. In tlie Articles of Confederation, while 
provision is made for the surrender of fugitive- 
criminals, nothing is said of fugitive slaves or 
servants ; and there is no evidence in any quar- 



15 



ter, until after tbe National Convention, of 
any hardship or solicitude on this account. 
No previous voice was heard to express desire 
for any provision on the subject. The story to 
the contrary is a modern fiction. 

I put aside as equally fabulous the common 
saying that this provision was one of the origi- 
nal compromises of the Constitution and an 
essential condition of Union. Though sanc- 
tioned by eminent judicial opinions, it will be 
found that this statement has been hastily 
made, without any support in the records of 
the Convention, the only authentic evidence of 
the compromises ; nor will it be easy to find 
any authority for it in any contemporary doc- 
ument, speech, published letter or pamphlet of 
any kind, ft is true that there were compro- 
mises at the formation of the Constitution, 
which were the subject of anxious debate ; but 
this was not of them. 

There was a compromise between the small 
and large States, by which equality was secur- 
ed to all the States in the Senate. There was 
another compromise finally carried, under 
threats from the South, on the'motion of a New 
England member^ by which the Slave States 
were allowed Representatives according to the 
whole number of free persons, and "' three-fifths 
of all other persons,"' thus securing political 
power on account of their slaves, in considera- 
tion that direct taxes should be apportioned in 
the same way. Direct taxes have ])een impos- 
ed at only four brief intervals. The political 
power has been constant, and, at this moment, 
sends twenty-one members to the other House. 

There was a third compromise, which can- 
not be mentioned without shame. It was that 
hateful bargain by which Congress were re- 
strained until 1S08 from the prohibition of the 
foreign slave trade, thus securing, down to that 
period, toleration for crime. This was pertina- 
<3iously pressed by the South, even to the extent 
of an absolute restraint on Congress. John 
Eutledge said: "If the Convention thinks 
North Carolina, South Carolina^ and Georgia, 
will ever agree to this plan [the Federal Con- 
stitution] unless their right to import slaves be 
untouched, the expectation is vain. The people 
of those States will never be such fools as to 
give up so important an interest.'*' Charles 
Pinckney said: '• South Carolina can never re- 
ceive the plan [of the Constitution] if it pro- 
hibits the slave trade.'* Charles Cotesworth 
Pinckney '"thought himself bound to declare 
candidly that he did not think South Carolina 
would stop her importation of slaves in any 
short time." The elfrontery of the slaveholders 
was matched by the sordidness of the Eastern 
members, who yielded again. Luther Martin, 
the eminent member of the Convention, in his 
contemporary address to the Legislature of 
Maryland, has described the compromise. ''I 
found," he says, " that the Eastern members, 
notwithstanding their aversion to Slavery, were 
very willing to indulge the Southern -States, at , 



least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the 
slave trade, provided ike Southern Stales would 
in their turn gratify them, hy laying no restric- 
tion on navigation actsP The bargain was 
struck, and at this price the Southern States 
gained the detestable indulgence. At a subse- 
quent day. Congress branded the slave trade as 
piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, ad- 
judged this compromise to be felonious and 
wicked. 

Such are the three chief original compromi- 
ses of the Constitution and essential conditions 
of Union. The case of fugitives from labor 
is not of these. During the Convention, it 
was not in any way associated with these. Nor 
is there any evidence, from the records of this 
body, that the provision on this subject was re- 
garded with any peculiar interest. As its ab- 
sence from the Articles of Confederation had 
not been the occasion of solicitude or desire, 
anterior to the National Convention, so it did 
not enter into any of the original plans of the 
Constitution. It was introduced at a late period 
of the Convention, and with very little and 
most casual discussion, adopted. A few facts 
will show how unfounded are the recent as- 
sumptions. 

The National Convention was convoked to 
meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday 
in May, 1787. Several members appeared at 
this time : but a majority of the States not 
being represented, those present adjourned 
from day to day until the 25th, when the Con- 
vention was organized by the choice of George 
Washington, as President. On the 28th, a 
few brief rules and orders were adopted. On 
the next day they commenced their great 
work. 

On this day Edmund Randolph, of slavehold- 
ing Virginia, laid before the Convention a se- 
ries of sixteen resolutions, containing his plan 
for the establishment of a new National Gov- 
ernment. Here was no allusion to fugitive 
slaves. 

On the same day, Charles Pinckney, of slave- 
holding South Carolina, laid before the Con- 
vention what is called •• a draft of a Federal 
Government, to be agreed upon between the 
free and independent States of America,'" an 
elaborate paper, marked by considerable mi- 
nuteness of detail. Here are provisions, bor- 
rowed from the Articles of Confederation, se- 
curing to citizens of each State equal privi- 
leges in the several States ; giving faith to tlie 
public records of the States; and ordaining 
the surrender of fugitives from justice. But 
this draft, though from the flammg guardian 
of the slave-interest, contained no allusion to 
fugitive slaves. 

In the course of the Convention other plans 
were bi-ought forward; on the 15bh of June a 
series of eleven propositions b3' Mr. Patterson, 
of New Jersey, '-so as to render the Federal 
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Gov- 
ernment, and the preservation of the Union ; " 



16 

on tho ISfcli of June, eleven propositions by ! dlly and was so slightly noticed in the Nation- 



Mr. Hamilton, of New York, '-'containing his 
ideas of a suitable plan of Government for 
the United States:" and on the 19th June, 
Mr. Randolph's resolutions, originally oiTered 
on the 29th May, "as altered, amended, and 
agreed to in Committee of the Whole House. 
On the 26th. twenty-three resolutions, already 
adopted on different days in the Convention, 
were referred to a " Committee of Detail," to 
be reduced to the form of a Constitution. On 



al Convention, was neglected in much of the 
contemporaneous discussion before the people. 
In the Conventions of South Carolina, North 
Carolina, and Virginia, it was commended as 
securing important rights, though on this point 
there was a difference of opinion. In the Vir- 
ginia Convention, an eminent character, Mr. 
George Mason, with others, expressly declared 
that there was '-no security of property coming 
Avithin this section." In the other Conventions 



the 6th August this committee reported the j it was disregarded. Massachusetts, while ex- 
finished draft of a Constitution. And yet in hibiting peculiar sensitiveness at any respon- 
all these resolutions, plans, and drafts, seven . sibility for Slavery, seemed to view it with un- 
in number, proceeding from eminent members ' concern. The Federalist, (No. 42.) in its classi- 
and from able committees, no allusion was ! fication of the powers of Congress, describes 
made to fugitive slaves. For three months the ' and groups a large number as those '^ which 
Convention was in session, and not a word ut- ^ provide for the harmony and proper inter- 
tered on this subject. course among the States," and therein speaks 

At last, on the 28th August, as the Con- of the power over public records, standing nest 
■vention was drawing to a close, on the consid- - in the Constitution to the pronsion on fugitives 
eration of the article providing for the privi- from labor : but it fails to recognise the latter 
leges of citizens in different States, we meet among the means of promoting that ''harmony 
the first reference to this matter, in words and proper intercourse ; " nor does it anywhere 
worthy of note : '• Gen. [Charles Cotesworth] j allude to the provision. 

Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He ; The indifference which had thus far attend- 
SEEMED to wish some provision should be ed this subject still continued. The earliest 
included in favor of property in slaves." But act of Congress, passed in 1793, drew little at- 
he made no proposition. UnwiUing to shock tention. It was not originally suggested by 
the Convention, and uncertain in his own mind, , any difficulty or anxiety touching fugitives from 
he only seemed to wish such a provision. In labor ; nor is there any record of the times, in 
this vague expression of a vague desire this debate or otherwise, showing that any special 
idea first appeared. In this modest, hesitating ' importance was attached to its provisions in 
phrase is the germ of the audacious, unhesita- • this regard. The attention of Congress had 
ting Slave Act. Here is the little vapor, which j been directed to fugitives from justice, and, 
has since swollen, as in the Aral)ian tale, to the ■ with little deliberation, it undertook in the 
power and dimensions of a giant. The next 1 same bill to provide for both classes of cases, 
article under discussion provided for the sur- , In this accidental manner was legislation on 
render of fugitives from justice. Mr. Butler > this subject first attempted. 
and Mr. Charles Pinckney, both from South There is no evidence that fugitives w©re often 
Carolina, now moved openly to require '• fugi- seized under this act. From a competent in- 
tive slaves and servants to be delivered up like quirer we learn that twenty-six years elapsed 
criminals." Here was no disguise. With Ham- before a single slave was surrendered under it 
let it was now said in spirit — | in any Free State. It is certain that, in a case 

Seems, mudam, nay, it is ; I know not snms. at Boston, towards the close of the last century, 

But the very boldness of the effort drew at- ' illustrated by Josiah_ Quincy as counsel, the 
Mr Wilson of Penn- crowd about the magistrate at the examination 

for 




propriety in the pu„ ^ .^ - p , • o i. - ^■■ t- 

and surrendering a slave or servant than a Supreme Court of this State, on application fo? 

horse.'-' Under the pressure of these objections the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied 

the offensive proposition was quietly with- by documentary evidence, refused to con^ply^ 

drawn. The article for the surrender uf crim- ""^f-^-^' '/'^ 7nastcreovM show a Bill of Sale from 

inals was tlien adopted. On the next day, ^^c Ahmghly. But even these cases passed 

August 29th, profiting by the suggestions al- without public oommcnt. , . , ,^ 

ready mad,,-, Mr. Butler moved a pn,position- '" ^^^J-J^'"' s^l^.'^c*: was introduced into the 

' •' - .'. ^ . -. 1 House of Koprpsentatives by an effort for an- 




0J)p0S! 

unanimously adoiiti-d. 

The provision, which showed itself thus tar 



provide more effectually '-fiu- reclaiming ser- 
vants and slaves, escaping from one State into 



IT 



another,"' was introduced into the Hor.se c 
ReDrescntatives by Mr. Pindall. of Virdnif 



of 
Representatives by Mr. Pindall. of Virginia. 
■was considered for several days in Committee 
of the Whole, amended and passed by this 
body. In the Senate, after much attention and 
warm debate, it was also passed with amend- 
ments. But on its return to the House for the 
adoption of the amendments, it was dropped. 
This effort, which, in the discussions of this 
subject, has thus far been unnoticed, is chiefly 
remarkable as the earliest recorded evidence of 
the unwarrantable assertion, now so common, 
that this provision was originally of vital im- 
portance to the peace and harmony of the 
country. 

At last, in 1850, we have another Act, passed 
by both Houses of Congress and approved by 
the President, familiarly known as the Fugi- 
tive Slave Bill. As I read this statute I am 
filled with painful emotions. The masterly 
subtlety with which it is drawn, might chal- 
lenge admiration, if exerted for a benevolent 
purpose ; but in an age of sensibility and re- 
finement, a machine of torture, however skilful 
and apt, cannot be regarded without horror. 
Sir, in the name of the Constitution which it 
violates; of my country which it dishonors; of 
Humanity which it degrades: of Christianity 
which it offends, I arraign this enactment, and 
now hold it up to the judgment of the Senate 
and the world. Again I shrink from no re- 
sponsibility. I may seem to stand alone; but 
all the patriots and martyrs of history, all the 
Fathers of the Republic, are with me. Sir, 
there is no attribute of God which does not 
unite against this Act. 

But 1 am to regard it now chiefly as an in- 
fringement of the Constitution. And here its 
outrages, flagrant as manifold, assume the deep- 
est dye and broadest character only when we 
consider that by its language it is not restrained 
to any special race or class, to the African or 
to the person with African blood ; but that any 
inhabitant of the United States, of whatever 
complexion or condition, may be its victim. 
Without discrimination of color even, and 
in violation of every presumption of freedom, 
the Act surrenders all, who may be claimed as 
"owing service or labor " to the same tyran- 
nical proceedings. If there be any, whose sym- 
palhifs are not moved for the slave, who do not 
cheribh the rights of the humble African, strug- 
gling for divine Freedom, as warmly as the 
rights of the white man, let him consider well 
that the rights of all are equally assailed. 
" Nephew," said Algernon Sidney in prison, 
on the night before his execution, '* I value not 
my own life a chip, but what concerns me is 
that the law which talies away my lite may 
hang every one of you, whenever it is thought 
convenient." 

Though thus comprehensiA'e in its provisions 
and applicable to all, there is no safeguard of 
Human Freedom which the monster Act does 
not set at naught. 



It commhs this great question — than which 
none is more sacred in the law — not to a solemn 
trial; but to summary proceedings. 

It commits this question — not to one of the 
high tribunals of the laud — but to the unaided 
judgment of a single petty magistrate. 

It commits this question to a magistrate, ap- 
pointed, not by the President with the consent 
of the Senate, but by the Court; holding his 
office, not during good behaviour, but merely 
during the will of llieC^ourt; and receiving, not 
a regular salary, but fees according to each in- 
dividual case. 

It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, 
by affidavits, without the sanction of cross-ex- 
amination. 

It denies the writ of Habeas Corpus, ever 
known as the Palladium of the citizen. 

Contrary to the declared purposes of the fra- 
mers of the Constitution, it sends the fugitive 
back " at the public expense." 

Adding meanness to the violation of the Con- 
stitution, it bribes the Commissioner by a double 
fee to pronounce against Freedom. If he dooms 
a man to Slavery, the reward is ten dollars ; 
but, saving him to Freedom, his dole is five 
dollars. 

The Constitution expressly secures the " free 
exercise of religion ; " but this Act visits with 
unrelenting penalties the faithful men and 
women, who may render to the fugitive that 
countenance, succor, and shelter, which in 
their conscience " religion " seems to require. 

As it is for the public weal that there should 
be an end of suits, so by the consent of civil- 
ized nations, these must be instituted within 
fixed limitations of time ; but this Act, exaUing 
Slavery above even this practical principle of 
universal justice, ordains proceedings against 
Freedom without any reference to lapse of 
time. 

Glancing only at these points, and not stop- 
ping for argument, vindication, or illustration, 
1 come at once upon the two chief radical ob- 
jections to this Act, identical in principle with 
I those brought by our Fathers against the Brit- 
I ish Stamp Act {first, that it is a usurpation by 
i Congress of powers not granted by the Consti- 
' tutio'n, and an infraction of rights secured to the 
States; and, secondly, that it takes away Trial 
by .Tury in a question of Personal Liberty and 
a suit at common law. Either of these objec- 
tions, if sustained, strikes at the very root of the 
Act. That it is obnoxious to both seems be- 
yond doubt. 

But here, at this stage, I encounter the diffi- 
culty, that these objecTions have been already 
foreclosed by the legislation of Congress and by 
the decisions of the Supreme Court; that as 
early as 1793 Congress assumed power over 
this subject by an Act, which iiiiied to se- 
cure Trial bv .Tury, and that the validity of 
this Act under the Constitution has been af- 



18 



firmed by the Supreme Court. On examiaa- 
tion this difficulty will disappear. 

The Act of 1793 proceeded from a Congress 
that had already recognised the United States 
Bank, chartered by a previous Congress, which, 
though sanctioned by the Supreme Court, has 
been since in high quarters pronounced uncon- 
stitutional. If it erred as to the Bank, it may 
have erred also as to fugitives from labor. But 
the very Act contains a capital error on this 
very subject, so declared by the Supreme Court, 
in pretending to vest a portion of the judicial 
power of the Nation in State officers. This 
error takes from the Act all authority as an in- 
terpretation of the Constitution. I dismiss it. 

The decisions of the Supreme Court are en- 
titled to great consideration, and will not be 
mentioned by me except with respect. Among 
the memories of my youth are happy days in 
which I sat at t e feet of this tribunal, while 
Marshall presided, with Story by his side. 
The pressure now proceeds from the case of 
Pngg vs. Pennsyluania, (16 Peters, 539,) 
wherein the power of Congress over this mat- 
ter is asserted. Without going into any minute 
criticism of this judgment, or considering the 
extent to v»rhich it is extra-judicial, and there- 
fore of no binding force, all which has been al- 
ready done at the bar in one State, and by an 
able court in another; but conceding to it a 
certain degree of weight as a rule to the judi- 
ciary on this particular point, still it does not 
touch the grave question arising from the de- 
nial of Trial by Jury. This judgment was pro- 
nounced by Mr. Justice Story. From the in- 
teresting biography of this great jurist, recently 
published by his son. we derive the distinct 
statement that the necessity of Trial by Jury 
was not before the Coujt; so that, in the esti- 
mation of the judge fiimself, it was still an 
open question. Here are the words : 

" One prevailing opinion, which has created great 
prejudice ai^'ainst this judgment, is, that it denies the 
right of a person claimed as a fugitive from service 
or labor to a trial by jury. This mistake arises from 
supposing the case to involve the general question as 
to the constitutionality of the Act of 1793. But in 
fact no such question was in the ease ; and the argu- 
ment that the Act of 179;^ was unconstitutional, be- 
cause it did not provide for a trial by jury according 
to the requisitions of the sixth article in the amend- 
ments to the Constitution, having been suggested to 
my fathor on his return from Washington, he replied 
that this question was not argued by counsel norcon- 
i^idercd by the Court, and that he should still consider 
it an oi)en one." 

But whatever may he the influence of this 
judgment as a rule to the judiciary, it cannot 
arrest our duty as legislators. And here I adopt 
with entire assent the language of President 
Jackson, in his metnorahle Veto, in 1832, of 
the Bank of the United Stales. To his course 
was opposed lh(; authority of the Supreme 
Court, and this is liis re|)ly : 

" If the ojiinion of the Supremo Court covers tho 
whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the 
coordinate autliorities of this Govornmont. The 



Congress, the Executivo, and the Court, must each 
for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Consti- 
tution. Each jmhlic officer, who takes an. oath to sup- 
port the Constitution, swears tlutt he will support it as 
he, understands it, and not as it is understood hy oth- 
ers. It is as much the duty of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to de- 
cide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolu- 
tion, which may be presented to them for passage or 
approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges when it may 
be brought before them for judicial decision. Tho 
authority of tho Supreme Court must not, therefore, 
be permitted to control the Congress or the Execu- 
tive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but 
to have only such influence as the force of their rea- 
soning may deserve." 

With these authoritative words of Andrew 
Jackson I dismiss this topic. The early legis- 
lation of Congress and the decisions of the Su- 
preme Court cannot stand in our way. I ad- 
vance to the argument. 

( I .) J\hw,Jirst, of the power of Congress over 
this .subject. 

The Constitution contains powers granted to 
Congress, compacts between the States, and 
prohibitions addressed to the Nation and to the 
States. A compact or prohibition may be ac- 
companied by a power ; but not necessarily, for 
it is essentially distinct in its nature. And 
here the single question arises, whether the 
Constitution, by grant, general or special, con- 
fers upon Congress any power to legislate on 
the subject of fugitives from labor. 

The whole legislative power of Congress is 
derived from two sources; first from the gen- 
eral grant of power, attached to the long cata- 
logue of powers, " to make all laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for the carrying 
into execution the foregoing powers and all 
other powers vested by this Constitution in the 
i Government of the United States, or in any 
department or officer thereof;" and secondly, 
I from special grants in other parts of the Consti- 
i tution. As the provision in question does not 
; appear in the catalogue of powers and does not 
I purport to vest any power in the Government 
I of the United States, or in any department or 
officer thereof, no power to legislate on this sub- 
ject can be derived from the general grant. Nor 
can any such power be derived from any 
special irrant in any other part of the Constitu- 
tion ; for none such e.xists. The conclu^on 
must be, that no power is delegated to ("ongress 
over the surrender of fugitives from labor. 

In all contemporary discussions and com- 
ments, the Constitution was constantly justified 
and rt'comniended, on tlie ground that the pow- 
ers not given to the Government were with- 
held from it. If under its original provisions 
any doubt could have existed on this head, it 
was removed, so far as language could remove 
it, by the Tenth Amendment, which, as we 
have already seen, expressly declares that, 
" the powers nx}l delegated to the United States 
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
Slates, are reserved to the Slates respectively 



19 



or to the people." Here on the simple text 
of the Constitution I might leave this ques- 
tion. But its importance justifies a more ex- 
tended examination in a two-fold light : Jirst. 
in the history of the Convention, revealing the 
unraistakeable intention of its members ; and 
secondly, in the true principles of our Political 
System, by which the powers of the Nation 
and of the States are respectively guarded. 

Look first at the Idstonj of the Convention. 
The articles of the old Con'ederalion, adopted 
by the Conlinental Congress 15lh Nov., 1777, 
though containing no reference to fugitives from 
labor, had provisions substantially like those in 
our present Constitution, touching the privi- 
leges of citizens in the several States, the sur- 
render of fugitives from justice and the credit 
due to the public records of States. But, since 
the Confederation had no powers not " ex- 
pressly delegated," and as no power was del- 
egated to legislate on these matters, they were 
nothing more than articles of treaty or compact. 
Afterwards at the National Convention, these 
three provisions found a place in the first re- 
ported draft of a Constitution, and they were 
arranged in the very order which they occu- 
pied in the Articles of Confederation. The 
clause relating to public records stood last. Mark 
this fact. 

When this clause, being in form merely a 
compact, came up for consideration in the Con- 
vention, various efforts were made to graft 
upon it a poiver 

the adoption of the clause relating to fugitives 
from labor. Charles Pinckney moved to com- 
mit it with a proposition for a poficer to estab- 
lish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy 
and foreign bills of exchange. Mr. Madison 
was in favor of a power for the execution of 
judgments in other States. Gouverneur Mor- 
ris also on the same day moved to commit a 
further proposition for a poicer " to determine 
the proof and effect of such acts, records, and 
proceedings." Amidst all these efforts to as- 
sociate a power with this compact, it is clear 
that nobody supposed that any such already 
existed. This narrative places the views of 
the Convention beyond question. 

The compact regarding public records, to- 
gether with these various propositions, was re- 
ferred to a committee, on which were Mr. 
Randolph and Mr. \\'ilson, with John Rut- 
ledge, of South Carolina, as chairn)an. After 
several days, they reported the compact with 
a power in Congress to pr'^scribe by general 
laws the manner in which such records'shall 
be proved. A discussion ensued, in which 
Mr. Randolph complained that the " definition 
ot the powers of the Government was so loose 
as to give it opportunities of usurping all the 
Slate powers. He. ?«•«.? for not icoiiiu; further 
than the report, tchich enables the I legislature to 
provide fw the effect of judgmculs." The 



was then adopted, and is now a part of the 
Constitution. In presence of this solicitude 
for the preservation of " State powers," even 
while considering a proposition for an express 
power, and also of the distinct statement of 
Mr. Randolph, that he " was not forgoing fur- 
ther than the report," it is evid(>nt that the idea 
could not then have occurred that a power was 
coupled with the naked clause of compact on 
fugitives from labor. 

At a later day, the various clauses and arti- 
cles severally adopted from time to time in 
Convention were referred to a committee of re- 
vision and arrangement, that they might be re- 
duced to form as a connected whole. Here 
another change u'as made. The clause relating 
to public records, with the power attached, 
was taken from its original place at the bottom 
of the clauses of compact, and promoted to 
stand first in the article, as a distinct section, 
while the other clauses of compact, concerning 
citizens, fugitives from justice and fugitives 
from labor, each and all without any power 
attached, by a natural association compose but 
a single section, thus : 

"ARTICLE IV. 

" Section 1. Full faith and creditshall be given in 
each States to the public acts, records, and judici.al 
proceedings of every other State. And the. Congress 
may by general hnrs prescribe t hr manner in irJiich such 
acts, records, and jnucetdings shall he jiroved, and the 
effect thereof. 

"Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be en- 



This was on the very day of [ Se's^ev°eral' Stlte?"' """"^ immunities of citizens in 

" A person charged in any State with treason, fel- 
ony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and 
be found in another State, shall, on demand of tho 
Executive authority of tho State from which he fled, 
be delivered up, to be removed to the State having 
jurisdiction of tho crime. 

" No person held to service or labor in one State, 
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, 
in consequence of any law or regulation therein, bo 
discharged from such service or labor, but shall be 
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such 
service or labor may be duo. 

"Section 3. Xew States may he admitted hy the 
Congress into this Union : but no new State shall be 
formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any 
other State; nor any State be formed by the junc- 
tion of two or more Statos. or parts of States, with- 
out the consent of the Legislatures of the States con- 
cernod as i/r/l as nf the Congress. 

" IVie Congress sha/l hare power to dispose of and 
make all needful rules and regulations rcsjiccting tho 
territory or other property belonging to tiie Inited 
States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so 
construed as to prejudice any claims of tho Unitec* 
States, or of any particuIar.Statc. 

"Section 4. The United States shall gnaranti^ 
to every State in this Union a republican form of 
Government, and sliall pruieet each of them against 
invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or «if 
the E.\ecutivo, (when the Legislature cannot be con- 
vened) against domestic violence."' 

Here is the whole article. It will be ob- 
served that the third section immediately fol- 
lowing the triad section of compacts, contains 
two specific powers, one with ngnrd to new 



clause of compact with tlie power attached i Stales, and the other with regard to the Public 



20 

Treasury. These are naturally grouped to- i stead of the existing compact on fugitives from 



gelher, while the fourth section of this same 
article, which is distinct in its character, is 
placed by itself. In tlie absence of all specific 
information, reason alone can determine why 
this arrangement was made. But the conclu- 
sion is obvious, that, in the view of the Com 



labor, it would have been easy, had any such 
desire prevailed, to add this case to the clause 
on Naturalization and Bankruptcies, and to 
empower Congress to establish an uniform 

RULE FOR THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES FROM 
LABOR THROUGHOUT THE UnITED StATES. 



mittee and of the Convention, each of these Then, of course, whenever Congress under- 



sections differs from the others. The first con- 
tains a compact with a grant of power. The 
second contains provisions, all of which are 
simple compacts, and two of which were 
confessedly simple compacts in the old Articles 
of Confederation, from which, unchanged in let- 
ter or spirit, they W3re borrowed. The third 
is a two-fold grant of power to Congress, with- 
out any compact. The fourth is neiiher power 
nor compact merely, nor both united, but asol- 
enm injunction upon the National Govern- 
ment to perform an important duty. 

The framers of the Constitution were wise 
and careful men, who had a reason for what 
they did and who understood the language 
which they employed. Tiiey did not. after 
discussion, incorporate into their work any su- 
perfluous provision; nor did they without de- 
sign adopt the peculiar arrangement in which 
it appears. In adding to the record compact 
the express grant of power, they testified not 
only their desire for such power in Congress ; 
but their conviction, that witliout an express 
grant, it would not exist. But if an express 
grant was necessary in this case, it was equally 
necessary in all the other cases. Expressum 
facit cessare tacUnm. Especially, in view of its 
odious character, was it necessary in the case 
of fugitives from labor. In abstaining from 
any such grant, and then, in grouping the bare 
compact witli other similar compacts, separate 
from every grant of power, they have most 
significantly testified their purpose. They not 
only decline all addition of any such power to 
tlie compact, but to render misapprehen- 
sion impossible, to make assurance doubly 
sure, to exclude any contrary conclusion, they 
punctiliously arrange the clauses, on the prin- 
ciple of noscUur a soci'is, so as to distinguish 
all the grants of power, but especially to make 
llie new grant of power, in the case of public 
records, stand forth in the front by itself, sev- 
ered from iheuiere naked compacts with which 
it was originally associated. 

Thus the records of the Convention show 



took to exercise the power, all State control of 
the subject would have been superseded. The 
National Government would have been consti- 
tuted, like Nimrod, the mighty Hunter, with 
power to gather the huntsmen, to halloo the 
pack, and to direct the chase of men, ranging 
at will, without regard to boundaries or juris- 
dictions, throughout all the States. But no 
person in the Convention, not one of the reck- 
less partisans of slavery, was so audacious as 
to make this proposition. Had it been distinctly 
made, it would have been distinctly denied. 

The fact that the provision on this subject 
was adopted unanimously, while showing the 
little importance attached to it in the shape it 
finally assumed, testifies also that it could not 
have been regarded as a source of JWitional power 
over Slaveiij. It will be remembered, that, 
among the members of the Convention, were 
Gouverneur Morris, who had said, that he 
" never would concur in upholding domestic 
slavery ;" Elbridge Gerry, who "thought " we 
ought to be careful not to give any sanction to 
it; Roger Sherman, who was opposed to 
any clause " acknowledging men to be prop- 
erty ;" and Mr. Madison, who "thought it 
WRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea 
that there could be property in man." In 
the face of these unequivocal statements, it is 
absurd to suppose that they consented unani- 
moasly to any provision by which the National 
Government, the work of their hands, dedi- 
cated to F'reedom, could be made the most of- 
fensive instrument of slavery. 

Thus much for the evidence from the his- 
tory of the Convention. But the true princi- 
])lc.sof oar Political System are in harmony with 
this conclusion of liislory ; and here let me say 
a word of Stale Rights. 

It was the purpose of our fathers to create a 
National Government and to endow it with ad- 
e(|uaie powers. Tiiey had known the perils 
of imbecility, discord, and confusion, during 
the uncertain days of the Confede'ration, and 
desired a Government which should be a true 



that the founders understood the necessity of | bond of Union and an efficient organ of the 
poiccrs in certain cases, and, on consideration, 
most jealously granted them. A closing ex- 
ample will strengthen the argument. Congress 
is expressly empowered " to esiahlish an uniform 
rule of Naturalization, and anijorm lines on the 
siibject of Bankruptcif's, throii<j:liout the United 
Slates." AVithout this provision these two 

sul)jects would have been within the control of \ general in character and unlimited in number, 
the Slates, the Nation having no power to es- ■ not delegated to the Nation or prohibited to the 
tublisli an yuvforui rale thereupon. Now, in- ' States. 



national interests at home and abroad. But 
while fashioning this aofpncv, they fully recog- 
nised the Governments of the States. To the 
nation were delegated high powers, essential 
to the national interests, but specific in charac- 
ter and limited in number. To the Slates 
and to the people were reserved the powers. 



21 



The integrity of our Political System de- | 
pends upon harmony in the operations of the 
Nation and of the States. While the Na- 
tion within its wide orbit is supreme, the 
^^tates move with equal supremacy m their 
own. But from the nectssiiy of the case the 
supremacy of each in its proper place excludes 
the other. The Nation cannot exercise rights 
reserved to the States ; nor can the States in- 
terfere with the powers of the Nation. Any 
such action on either side is a usurpation. 
These principles were distinctly declared by 
Mr. Jefferson, in 1798, in words often adopted 
since ; and wliich must find acceptance from 
all parties : 

" That the several States composing the United 
States of America are not unitcrl upon the principle 
of unlimited suliraission to the (lenoral Governraont; 
but that by compact, under tlie style and title of the 
Constitution of the United States and of the amend- 
ments thereto, they constituted a General Govern- 
ment for special purposes, delegated to tluit Goveni- 
me?it rei-taiu d''fi?/itr poire)-K,TCsor\-[ng each State to 
itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self- 
governmeDt, and that wheresoever the General Gov- 
e'tnnent assiivies undelegated powers, its acts are un- 
aiuhorized, void, atul oj iioforeeP 

But I have already amply shown to-day that 
Slavery is in no respect national — that it is not 
within the sphere of national activity — that it 



o^Frcednm. The same principle of State Rights 
by which Slavery is protected in tlie Slave 
States throws its impenetrable shield over Free- 
dom in the Free Stales. And here, let me say, 
is the only security for Slavery in the Slave 
Slates as for Freedom in the Free States. In 
the present fatal overthrow of State Rights you 
teach a lesson which may return to plague the 
teacher. Compelling the National Govern- 
ment to stretch its Briarean arms into the Free 
States, for the sake of Slavery, you show open- 
ly hoAV it may stretch these same hundred 
giant arms into the Slave States for the sake of 
Freedom. This lesson was not taught by our 
fathers. 

And here I end this branch of the question. 
The true principles of our Political System, the 
history of the National Convention, the natural 
interpretation of the Convention, all teach that 
this Act is a usurpation by Congress of powers 
that do not belong to it, and an infraction of 
rights secured to the States. It is a sword, 
whose handle is at the National Capital, and 
whose point is everywhere in the States. A 
weapon so terrible to Personal Liberty the Na- 
tion has no power to grasp. 

(2.) Jlnd now of the denhl of Thiol by Jtti y. 
Admitting, for the moment, that Congress is 



has no " positive" support in the Constitution, ! intrusted witli power over this subject, which 
and that any interpretation thereof inconsistent 
with this principle would be abhorrent to the 
sentiments of its founders. Slavery is a local 
institution, peculiar to the States and under the 
guardianship of State Rights. It is impossible, 
without violence, at once to the spirit and to 
the letter of the Constitution, to attribute to Con- 
gress any power to legislate, either for its abo- 
lition in the States or its support anywhere. 
A''on-Intci-vention is tiie rule prescribed to the 
Nation. Regarding the question only in its 



truth disowns, still the Act is as^ain radically 
unconstitutional from its denial of Trial by.Tury 
in a question of Personal Liberty and a suit at 
common law. Since on the one side there is a 
claim of property, and on the other of liberty, 
both property and liberty are involved in the 
issue. To this claim on either side is attached 
Trial by Jury. 

To me, sir, regarding this matter in the light of 
the common law and in the blaze of free institu- 
tions, it has always seemed impossible to arrive 



more generalaspects, and putting aside, for the i at any other conclusion. If the language of the 



moment, the perfect evidence from the records 
of the Convention, it is palpable that there is 
no natioiud fountain out of which the existing 
Slave Act can be derived. 

But this Act is not only an unwarrantable 
assumption of power by the Nation ; it is also 



Constitution were open to doubt, which it is 
not, still all the presumptions of law, all the 
leanings for Freedom, all the suggestions of 
justice, plead angel-tongueti for this right. No- 
body doubts that Congress, if it legislates on 
this matter, inuy allow a Trial by Jury. But if 



an infraction of rights reserved to the States, i it ma/Zi -^o overwhelming is the claim of justice 



Everywhere within their borders the States are 
the peculiar guardians of personal liberty. By 
Jury and Habeas Corpus to save the citizen 
harmless against all assault is among their du- 
ties and rights. To his State the citizen when 
oppres.sed may appeal, nor should he find that 
appeal denied. But this Act despoils him of 
his rights and despoils his Slate of all power to 
protect him. It subjects him to the wretched 
chancHSof false oaths, forged papers, and facile 
commissioners, and lakes trom him every safe- 
guard. Now, if the slaveholder has a right to 
be secure at home in the enjoyment of Slavery, 
so also has the freeman of the'Nurth— and every 
person there is presumed to be a freeman — an 
equal right to be secure at home in the enjoyment 



It MUST. Beyond this, however, the question 
is determined by the precise letter of the Con- 
stitution. 

Several expressions in the provision for the 
surrender of iugiiives from labor show the es- 
sential character of the proceedings. In "the 
first place, the person must be, not merely 
charged, as in the case of fugitives from justice, 
but actually held to labor in the Stale from 
which he escaped. In the second place, he 
must be "delivered up on claim of the party 
to whom such labor is dite.^' These two fiicts, 
that he was held to labor, and that his laJjorwas 
due to his claimant, are directly placed in issue 
and must be proved. Two necessary incidents 
of the delivery may also be observed. First, it 



22 



must be made in the State where the fugitive is 
found ; and, secondly, it restores to the claim- 
ant his complete control over the person of the 
fugitive. From these circumstances it is evi- 
dent that the proceedings cannot be regarded, 
in any just sense, as preliminary, or ancillary 
to some future formal trial, but as complete in 
themselves, final and conclusive. 

And these proceedings determine on the one 
side the question of property, and on the other 
the sacred question of Personal Liberty in its 
most transcendent form ; not merely Liberty 
for a day or a year, but for life, and tlie Liberty 
of generations that shall come after, so long as 
Slavery endures. To these questions, the Con- 
stitution, by two specific provisions, attaches 
the Trial by Jury. One of these is the fixmiliar 
clause, already adduced: " No person shall be 
deprived ol lii'e , Uherty , ov property, t<.u//to«< due 
process of law ; " that is, without due proceed- 
ings at law, with Trial by Jury. Not stopping 
to dwell on this, I press at once to the other 
provision, v^^hich is still more express : " In 
suits at common law, where the value in con- 
troversv shall exceed twenty dollars, the right 
of Trial by Jury shall be preserved." This 
clause, which was not in the original Constitu- 
tion!, was suggested by the very spirit of Free- 
dont. At the close of the National Convention, 
Elbridge Gerry refused to sign tlie Constitution, 
because among other things, it established "a 
tribunal leitlioiit juries, a Star Chamber as to 
civil cases." Many united in his opposition, 
and on the recommendation of the First Con- 
gress this" additional safeguard was adopted as 
an amendment. 

Now, regarding the question as one of 
property, or of Personal Liberty, iri either 
alternative the Trial by Jury is secured. For 
this position authority is ample. In the de- 
bate on the Fugitive Slave Bill of 1817-'18, 
a Senator from South Carolma, Mr. Smith, 
anxious for the asserted right of property, ob- 
jected, on this very tloor, to a reference of the 
question, under the writ of Habeas Corpus, to 
a judge without a jury. Speaking solely for 
property, these were his words : 

" Thi? would give the Judge the sole, power of de- 
ciding t/cfi risiht. of piojicrty the master claims in his 
slavKS, iiislairl of trying that right iiy a jury, as prc- 
scrihcd by the Coiisliliitiiin. lie wcuild bo judge of 
matters of law and matters of fact : clothed with all 
the powers of a court. Such a principle is unknown 
in your .'<ystoni of jurisprudence. Your Constitutiiiii 
has forhid it. It preserves the right of Trial by Jury 
in ah cases whore llio valuo in controversy exceeds 
twenty dollars,"' — (Debates in Nutiunul liLlcltigeiiccr, 
Juno I."), 1818.) 

But this provision has been repeatedly dis- 
cussed by the Supreme Court, so that its mean- 
ing is not open \o doubt. Three conditions are 
necessary. First, tlie proceedings must be " a 
suit ; " secoiulhj, " at conmion law ; " and third- 
lij, "■ when; the value in controversy exceeds 
twenty dollars." In every such case " the 
ri^ht of Trial by Jury sliall be preserved." The 



decisions of the Supreme Court expressly touch 
each of these points. 

First. In the case of Cohens vs. Virginia, 
(6 Wheaton, 407,) the Court say : " What is 
a suit? We understand it to be the prosecu- 
tion of some claim, demand, or request." Of 
course, then, the " claim " for a fugitive must 
be " a suit." 

Secondly. In the case of Parsons vs. Bedford, 
(3 Peters, 456,) while considering this very 
clause, the Court say : " By common law is 
meant not merely suits which the common law 
recognised among its old and settled proceed- 
ings, but suits in which legcd ri'glits were to be 
ascertained and determined. In a just sense, 
the Amendment may well be construed to em- 
brace all suits, which are not of Equity or Ad- 
miralty jurisdiction, ichatever may he the pecu- 
liar form which they may assume to settle legid 
rights." Now, since the claim for a fugitive 
is not a suit in Equity or Admiralty, but a suit 
to settle what are called legal rights, it must, of 
course, be " a suit at common law." 

TIdrdly. In the case of Lee vs. Lee, (8 Pe- 
ters, 44.) on a question whether " tlie value in 
controversy" was "one thousand dollars and 
upwards," it was objected that the appellants, 
who were petitioners for Freedom, were not of 
the value of one thousand dollars. But the 
Court said: "The matter in dispute is tne 
Freedom of the petitioners. This is 7iot suscep- 
tible of pecuniary valuation. No doubt is enter- 
tained of the jurisdiction of the Court." Of 
course, then, since liberty is above price, the 
claim to any fugitive always and necessarily 
presumes that " the value in controversy ex- 
ceeds twenty dollars." 

By these successive steps, sustained by de- 
cisions of the highest tribunal, 't appears, as in 
a diagram, that the right of Trial by Jury is se- 
cured to the fugitive from labor. 

This conclusion needs no further authority ; 
but it may receive curious illustration from the 
ancient records of the common law, so I'amiliar 
and dear to the framers of the Constitution. It 
is said by Mr. Burke, in his magnificent speech 
on Conciliation with America, that " nearly as 
many of Blackstone's Commentaries were sold 
in America as in England," carrying thither 
the knowledge of those vital principles of Free- 
dom, which were the boast of the British Con- 
stitution. Imbued by these, the earliest Conti- 
nental Congress, in 1774, declared, "' that the 
respective Colonies are entitled to the (jommon 
law of England, and especially to the great and 
inestimable privilege of being tried by their 
peers of the vicinage according to the i^ourse of 
that law." Thus, amidst the trouI)h>s which 
heralded the Revolution, the coimnou law was 
claimed by our fathers as a birthright. 

Now although the common law may not be 
approached as a source of jurisdiction underthe 
National Constitution — and on this point I do 
not dwell — il is clear that il may he employed i/i 



23 



determinina: the meaning of technical terms in 
the Constitution hoirowed from this law. This, 
indeed, is expressly sanctioned by Mr. Madi- 
son, in his celebrated report of 1799, while re- 
straining the extent to which the common law 
may be employed. Thus by this law we learn 
the nature of Trial by Jury, which, though 
secured, is not described by the Constitution ; 
also of -Bi7/.s of Attainder, the Jf^iit of Habeas 
Corpus, and Impeachment, all technical terms 
of the Constitution borrowed from the com- 
mon law. By this law, and its associate 
Chancery, we learn what are cases in law and 
equity to which the judicial power of the United 
States is extended. These instances I adduce 
merely by way of example. Of course also in 
the same way we learn what in reality are suits 
at common law. 

Now, on principle and authority, a claim for 
the delivery of a fugitive slave is a suit at com- 
mon law, and is embraced naturally and neces- 
sarily in this class of judicial proceedings. 
This proposition can be placed beyond question. 
And here, especially, let me ask the attention 
of all learned in the law. On this point, as on 
every other in this argument, I challenge in- 
quiry and answer. 

History painfully records that during the 
early days of the common law, and down even 
to a late period, a system of slavery existed in 
England, known under the name of villainage. 
The slave was generally called a fi//«i?i, though, 
in the original Latin forms of judicial proceed- 
ings, nativus, implying slavery by birth. The 
incidents of this condition have been minute- 
ly described, and also the mutual remedies 
of master and slave, all of which were regu- 
lated by the common law. Slaves sometimes 
then, as now, escaped from their masters. 
The claim lor them after such escape was pros- 
ecuted by a " suit at common law," to which, 
as to every suit at common law, the Trial by 
Jury was necessarily attached. Blackstone, in 
his Commentaries, (Vol. II, p. 93,) in words 
which must have been known to all the law- 
yers of the Convention, said of villains: "They 
could not leave their lord without his permis- 
sion, but if they ran away, or were purloined 
from him, might be claimed and recovered by 
.ACTION, like beasts or other cattle." This very 
word " action" of itself implies " a suit at com- 
mon law " with Trial by Jury. | 

From other sources we learn precisely what 
the action was. That great expounder of the 
ancient law, Mr. Hargrave, says, "the Year; 
Books and Books of Entries are full of the 
forms us'^d in pleading a title to villains." 
Though no lonirer of practical value in Eng- 
land, they remain as monuments of jurispru- | 
dence, and as mementoes of a barbarous insti- 
tution. He thus describes the remedy of the 
master at common law : ' 

" The lord's remedy for a.fii^{tivf villni)i wa?, cither | 
by seizure or by sueing out a writ of Nutivu Ilaben- 



do, or Nciffy, as it is sometimes called. If the lord 
seized, the villain's most effectual mode of recovering 
liberty was by the writ of llominj' Rfplcsriamlo, 
which had great advantage over the writ of Habeas 
Corpus. In the Ilahras Corpus the return cannot be 
contested by pleading against the truth of it, and 
conscquentlj- on a Htibeaa Corpus I he qufstiou of lib- 
erty cauvot so to a jury for trial. But in the llomijie 
Riplt^irnii/o it was otherwise. The plaintiff, on the 
defendant's pleading villainage, had the same oppor- 
tunity of contesting it, as wlicu iui|ileaded by the lord 
in a Nritico Tl'iheiido. If the lord sutd out a ?^ativo 
Hiibfiido, and the villainage was denied, in which caso 
the sheriff could not seize the villain, the lord tras 
tli.e/i to enter his plciiit i/t the eoinity court, and as 
the sheriff was not allowed to try the i|Uestion of vil- 
lainage in his court, the lord could not have any ben- 
efit from the writ, without removing the cause by the 
writ of Pojte into the King's Bench or Common 
Pleas."— (20 Howell's State Trials, 38 /lote.) 

The authority of Mr. Hargrave is sufficient. 
But I desire to place this matter beyond all 
cavil. From the Digest of Lord Chief Baron 
Coniyns, Vv'hich, at the adoption of the Consti- 
tution, was one of the classics of our jurispru- 
dence, I derive another description of the 
remedy of the master : 

" If the lord claims an inheritance in his villain, 
u'ho Jlies from his lord agni>ist his u-ill, and lives in 
a place out of the manor, to which he is regardant, 
the lord shall have a Nativo H'dieitdo. And upon 
such writ, directed to the sheriff, he may seize him 
who does not deny himself to be a villain. But if the 
defendant say that he is a Free Man, the sheriff cannot 
seize him, but the lord must remove the writ by Vone 
before the Justices in Eire, or in C. B., vlwre lie 
! must count upon it.'' — (Comyns' Digest — Villainage, 
i C. 1.) 

j An early writer of peculiar authority, Fitz- 
' herbert, in his JVatura Brevium, on the writs 
• of the common law, thus describes these pro- 
' ceedings : 

I '• The writ de Nativo Habrndo lieth for the lord 
who claimeth inheritance in any villain, vhen his 
villain is run from hiui. and is remaining within any 
place out of the manor unto which he is regardant, 
or when he departeth from his lord against the lord's 
will ; and the writ shall be directed to the sheriff. 
And the sheriff may seize the villain, and deliver him 
unto his lord, if the villain confess unto the sheriff 
that he is his villain ; but if the villain say to the 
sheriff that he is frank, then it seemetli that the 
sheriff ought not to seize him ; as it is in a replevin, 
if the defendant claim property, the sheriff cannot 
roplevj' the cattle, but the party ought to sue a writ 
de Proprietate Probanda ; and so if the villain say 
that he is a freeman, Ac, then the sheriff ought not 
to seize him, but then the lord ought to sue a Pone 
to remove the pica before the justices of the Common 
Pleas, or before the justices in eyre. But if the vil- 
lain jmrehase a writ de hihcrtate Probn nda before the 
lord hath sued the Pone to remove the plea before 
the justices, then that writ of Libertnte, Prolutuda ie 
a, Supersede// s unto the lord, that he proceed not upon 
the writ Nativo Habendo till the eyre of the justices, 
and that the lord ought not to seize the villain in the 
mean time." — (Vol. I, p. 76.) 

These authorities are not merely applicable 
to the general question of freedom; but they 
distinctly contemplate the case of fugitive 
slaves, and the "suitsat common law" for their 
rendition. Blackstone speaks of villains who 
" ran away;" Hargrave of "fugitive villains;'* 



24 

Comyns of a villain "who flies from his lord j unsurpassed learning and elevation, which of 



against his will ; " and Filzherbert of the pro 
ceedings of the lord " when his villain is run 



itself vindicates for its author his great juridical 
name, Mr. Hargrave had fully made them 



fromlum." Theforms,writs, counts, pleadings, ; known to such as were little acquainted with 



and judgments, in these suits, are all preserved 
among the precedents of the common law. The 
writs are known as original writs which the 
partv on either side, at the proper stage, could 
sue out of right without showing cause. The 
writ of Liberlate Probanda for a fugitive slave 
was in this form : 

" Llbcrtate Frohnnila. 

" The king to the sheriff, etc. A. and B. her sister, 
have showed unto us, tluit whorens they are free 
women, and ready to prove their libertj', F. claiming 
them to be his niefs unjustly, vexes them : and there- 
fore we command you, that if the aforesaid A. and B. 
shnll make you secure touching the proving of their 
liboity, then put that plea before our justices at the 
first assizes, when they shall come into those parts, 
because proof of this kind belongeth not to you to 
take ; and in the mean time cause the said A. and B. 
to have peace thereupon, and tell the aforesaid F. 
that ho may be there, if ho will, to prosecute his plea 
thereof against the aforesaid A. and B. And have 
there this writ. Witness, &c." — {Fit zhcrbert, Vol. I, 
p. 77.) 

By these various proeeedino'S, all ending in 
Trial by Jury, Personal Liberty was guarded, 
even in tlie early, unrefmed, and barbarous days 
of the common law. Any person claimed as a 
fugitive slave might invoke this Trial as a sa- 
cred right. Whether the master proceeded by 

si-izure, as he might, or by legal process, the ' against the constitutionality of the Slave Act. 
Trial by Jury in a suit at common law, before Much more I might say on this matter; much 



the more ancient sources. But even if we 
could suppose them unknown to the lawyers of 
the Convention, they are none the less appli- 
cable in determining the true meaning of the 
Constitution. 

The conclusion from this examination is ex- 
plicit. Clearly and indisputably, in England, 
the country of the common law, a claim for a 
fugitive slave was " a suit at common law," 
recognised " among its old and settled proceed- 
ings." To question this, in the face of authen- 
tic principles and precedents, would be prepos- 
terous. As well might it be questioned, that a 
writ of replevin for a horse, or a writ of right 
for land, was " a suit at common law." It 
follows, then, that this technical term of the 
Constitution, read in the illumination of the 
common law, naturally and necessarily era- 
braces proceedings for the recovery of fugitive 
slaves, if antj such he iastituted w allowed 
under the Constitution. And thus, by the letter 
of the Constitution, in harmony with the re- 
quirements of the common law, all such per- 
sons, when claimed by their masters, are en- 
titled to a Trial by Jury. 

Such, sir, is the argument, briefly uttered. 



one ofihe high courts of the realm, was equal- 
ly secured. In the case of seizure, the fugitive, 
reversing the proceedings, might institute pro- 
cess against his master and appeal to a court 
and jury. In the case of process by the master, 
the watchful law secured to the fugitive the 
same protection. By no urgency of force, by 
no device of process, could any person claimed 
as a slave be defrauded of this Trial. Such was 
the common law. If its early boast, that there 
could be no slaves in England, fails to be true, 



more on the two chief grounds of objection 
which I have occupied. But I am admonished 
to hasten on. 

Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional 
from a want of power in Congress and from a 
denial of Trial by Jury. I find myself again en- 
couraged by the example of our Revolutionary 
Fathers, in a case which is one of the land- 
marks of history. The parallel is important 
and complete. In 1765, the British Parlia- 
ment, bv a notorious statute, attempted to draw 



tliis at least may be its pride, that, according to ; money from the colonies through a stamp tax. 



its indisputable principles, the Liberty of every 
man was placed under the gtiard of Trial by 
Jury. 

The.se tilings may seem new to us ; but they 
must have been known to the members of the 
Convention, particularly to those iVom South 
CaroUna, through whose influence the provi- 
sion on this subject was adopted. Charles 
Coiesworth Pinckney and Mr. Rutledge had 
studied law at the Temple, one of the English 
Inns of Court. It would be a discredit to them, 
and also to other learned lawyers, members of 
the Convention, to suppose that they were not 
conversant with the principles and precedents 
directly applicaijle to this subject, all of which 
are set down in works of acknowledged weight, 
and at iliat time of constant professional study. 
Only a short time before, in the case of Sonicr- 
sell, tiiey had been most elaborately examined 
in Westujinster Hall, lu a Ibrensic effort of 



while the determination of certain questions of 
forfeiture under the statute was delegated — not 
to the courts of common law — but to courts of 
Admiralty without a jury. The Stamp Act, 
now execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this 
extent and no more. Its passage was the sig- 
nal for a general flame of opposition and indig- 
nation throughout the Colonies. It was de- 
nounced as contrary to the British Constitution 
on two principal grouiuh ; Jirst. as a usurpa- 
tion by Parliament of powers not belonging to 
it, and an infraction of rights secured to the 
Colonies; and secondly, as a denial of Trial by 
Jury in certain cases of property. 

The public feeling was variously expressed. 
At Boston, on tiie arrival of the stamps, the 
shops were closed, the bells of the churches 
tolled, and the flags of the ships hung at half- 
mast. At Portsmouth, in New Hampshire, 
the bells were tolled, and notice given to the 



25 



friends of Liberty to hold themselves in readi- 
ness to attend her funeral. At New York a 
letter was received from Franklin, tlien in Lon- 
don, written on the day after the passage of the 
Act, in v/hich he said : " The sun of liberty is 
set." The obnoxious Act, headed "Folly of 
England and Ruin of America," was con- 
temptuously hawked through the streets. Tiie 
merchants of New York, inspired then by Lib- 
erty, resolved to import no more goods from 
England until the repeal of the Act ; and their 
example was followed shortly afterwards by 
the merchants of Philadelphia and Boston. 
Bodies of patriots were organized everywhere 
under the name of " Sons of Liberty." The 
orators also spoke. James Otis with fiery 
tongue appealed to Magna Charta. 

Of all the States, Virginia — whose shield 
bears the image of Liberty trampling upon 
chains — first declared herself by solemn reso- 
lutions, which the timid thought " treason- 
able ;" but which soon found a response. New 
York followed. Massachusetts came next, 
speaking by the pen of the inflexible Samuel 
Adams. In an Address from the Legislature 
to the Governor, the true grounds of opposition 
to the Stamp Act, coincident with the two 
radical objections to the Slave Act, are clearly 
set forth : 

" You are pleased to say that the Stamp Act is an 
act of Parliament, and as such ought to be observed. 
This House, sir, has too great reverence for the Su- 
preme Legislature of the nation, fo question its just 
authority. It by no means appertains to us to pre- 
sume to adjust the boundaries of i\iQ poicer of Parlia- 
ment ; but //ouudtiries there nndouhlcdly are. We 
hope we may, witliout offence, put your Excellency 
in mind of that most grievous sentence of excommu- 
nication solemnly denounced by the Church in the 
name of the sacred Trinity, in the presence of King 
Henry the Third and the estates of the realm, against 
all those who should make statutes mi ocsiiiivE them, 
Being made, contrary to the liberties of Magna 
Cliarta. The Charter of this province invents the 
General Assembly with the power of making laws for 
its internal government and taxation ; and this Char- 
ter has never been forfeited. The Parliament has a 
right to make all laws within the limits of their own 
constitution.'' * * * " Tlie people complain that 
the Act vests a single judge of Admiralty with a power 
to try and determine their property in controversies 
arising from internal concerns, witliout a jury, con- 
trary to the very expression of Magna Churta, that 
130 freeman shall be amerced, but by the oath of good 
and lawful men of the vicinage." * * * " We 
deeply regret that the Parliament has seen fit to pass 
such an act as the Stamp Act ; we flatter ourselves 
that the hardships of it will shortly appear to them 
in such a light, as shall induce them in their wisdom 
to repeal it; in the inrun time, toe must beg your Ex- 
cellency to e.t:nlse its from doing anything to assist in 
the execution of itP 

Thus in those days spoke Massachusetts! 
The parallel still proceeds. The unconstitu- 
tional Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies 
by the Tories of that day precisely as the uncon- 
stitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by 
large and imperious numbers among us. 
Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant Governor 
and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Minis- 



ters in England ! " The Stamp Act is received 
with as much decency as could be expected. 
It leaves no room for evasion, and will execute 
itself." Like the judges of our day, in charges 
to grand juries he resolutely vindicated the 
Act, and admonished " the jurors and the peo- 
ple" to obey. Like Governors of our day, Ber- 
nard, in his speech to the Legislature of Mas- 
sachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. 
" I shall not," says this British Governor, 
" enter into any disquisition of the policy of 
this Act. I have only to say it is an act of the 
Parliament of Great Britain; and I trust that 
the supremacy of that Parliament over all the 
members of their Avide and diffused empire 
never Avas and never will be denied within 
these walls." Like marshals of our day, the 
officers of the Customs made " application for 
a military force to assist them in the execution 
of their duty." The military were against the 
people. A British major of artillery at New 
York exclaimed, in tones not unlike those now 
sometimes heard : " I will cram the stamps 
down their throats v/lth the end of my sword." 
The elaborate answer of Massachusetts — a pa- 
per of historic grandeur-— drawn by Samuel 
Adams, was pronounced " the ravings of a 
parcel of wild enthusiasts." 

Thus in those days epoke the partisans of 
the Stamp Act. But their weakness soon be- 
came manifest. In the face of an awakened 
community, where discussion has free scope, 
no men, though surrounded by office and 
wealth, can long sustain injustice. Earth, 
water, nature, they may subdue; but Truth 
they cannot subdue. Subtle and mighty, 
against all efforts and devices, it fills every re- 
gion of light, with its majestic presence. The 
Stamp Act was discussed and understood. Its 
violation ot constitutional rights was exposed. 
By resolutions of Legislatures and of town 
meetings, by speeches and writings, by public 
assemblies and processions, the country was 
rallied in peaceful phalanx against the execu- 
tion of the lid. To this great object, within 
the bounds of law and the constitution, were 
bent all the patriot energies of the land. 

And here Boston took the lead. Her rec- 
ords at this time are full of proud memorials. 
In formal instructions to her representatives, 
adopted unanimously, " having been read sev- 
eral times," in Town Meeting at Faneuil Hall, 
the following rule of conduct was prescribed : 

" We, therefore, think it our indispensable duty, in 
Justice to ourselves and Posterity, as it is our un- 
doubted Privilege, in the most open and unreserved, 
but decent and respectful Terms, to declare our 
greatest Dissatisfaction with this Law. And we think. 
It incunibeiit upon yon by no Means to join ill- any 
public Measures for countennvcing and assisting in 
the execution of the same. But to use j'our best en- 
deavors in the Generiil Assembly to have the inhe- 
rent inalienable Rights of the People of this Province 
asserted, and vindicated, and left upon the public rec- 
ord, that Posterity may never have reason to charge 
the present Times with the Guilt of tamely giv- 
ing them away." 



26 



Virginia responded to Boston. Many of her 
justices of the peace surrendered their commis- 
sions •' rather than aid in the enforcement of 
the law or be instrumental in the overthrow of 
their country's liberties." 

As the opposition deepened, its natural ten- 
dency was to outbreak and violence. But this 
was carefully restrained. On one occasion in 
Boston it showed itself in the lawlessness of a 
mob. But the town, at a public meeting in 
Faneuil Flail, called without delay on the mo- 
tion of the opponents of the Stamp Act, with 
James Otis as chairman, condemned the out- 



of liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be 
slaves, would have been fit instruments to 
make slaves of all the rest. The Ameri- 
cans have been wronged ; they have been 
driven to madness, I will beg leave to tell 
the House in a few words what is really 
my opinion. It is that the Stamp Act he re- 
pealed, absolutely, totally, and immediately.^' It 
was repealed. Within less than a year from 
its original passage, denounced and discredited, 
it was driven from the Statute Book. In the 
charnel-house of history, with the unclean 
thines of the Past, it now rots. Thither the 



rage. Eager in hostility to the execution of \ Slave Act is destined to follow. 



the Act, Boston cherished municipal order, 
and constantly discountenanced all tumult, vio- 
lence, and illegal proceedings. Her equal de- 
votion to these two objects drew the praises 
and congratulations of other towns. In reply, 
March 27th, 17G6, to an Address from the 
inhabitants of Plymouth, her own conscious- 
ness of duty done is thus expressed : 

" If the inhahitanls of Boston have taken t/tc legal 
and ii'arra lit able measures to prevent that misfortune, 
of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of 
ike Stamp Act, and as a necessary means of prevent- 
ing it have made any spirited applications for open- 
ing the custom-houses and courts of justice : if at 
the same time ihey have home their testimony against 
outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings, and 
given any example of the Love of Peace and good or- 
der, next to the consciousness of having done their 
duty is the satisfaction of meeting with the approba- 
tion of any of their fcllovr-countrymen.'' 

Learn now from the Diary of John Adams 
the results of this system : j 

" The year 1 765 has been the most remarkable year ! 
of my life. That enormous engine, fabricated by the j 
British Parliament, for battering down all the rights : 
and liberties of America — I mean the Stamp Act — I 
has raised and spread through the whole continent a j 
spirit that will be recorded to our honor with all fu- | 
ture generations. In every Colony, from Georgia to I 
New Hampshire inclusively, the stamp distributors 
and inspectors have been compelled by the uncon- I 
querable rage of the people to renounce their offices. 
Such and so universal has been the resentment of the 
people, that every man who has dared to speak in ' 
favor of the stamps, or to soften the detestation in i 
which they arc held, how great soever his abilities j 
and virtues had been esteemed before, or whatever : 
his fortune, connections, and influence had been, has 
been seen to sink into universal contempt and ig- i 
nominy." I 

The Stamp Act became a dead letter. At 
the meeting of Parliament numerous petitions stituti'onality of this enactment. Your duty 
were presented, calhng for its instant repeal, commences at once. All legislation hostile to 
Franklin, at that time in England, while giv- the fundamental law of the huni should be re- 
ing his famous testimony before the House of ^ pealed without delay. But the argument is 



Sir, regarding the Stamp Act candidly and 
cautiously, free from the animosities of the 
time, it is impossible not to see that, though 
gravely unconstitutional, it was at most an in- 
fringement of civil liberty only; not of personal 
liberty. There was an unjust tax of a few 
pence, with the chances of amercements by a 
single judge without a jury ; but, by no pro- 
vision of this Act was the personal liberty of 
any man assailed. Under it no freemar could 
be seized as a slave. Such an act, though 
justly obnoxious to every lover of constitu- 
tional Liberty, cannot be viewed with the 
feelings of repugnance, enkindled by a statute, 
which assails the personal liberty of every man, 
and under which any freeman may be seized as 
a slave. Sir, in placing the Stamp Act by the 
side of the Slave Act, I do injustice to that 
emanation of British tyranny. Both, indeed, 
infringe important rights ; one of property ; 
the other the vital right of all, which is to 
other rights as the soul to the body — tlie right 
of a man to himself. Both are condemned ; but 
their relative condemnation must be measured 
by their relative characters. As Freedom is 
more than property ; as Man is above the dol- 
lar that he earns ; as Heaven, to which we 
all aspire, is higher than the earth, where every 
accumulation of wealth must ever remain : so 
are the rights assailed by an American Con- 
gress higher than those once assailed by the 
British Parliament. And just in this degree 
must history condemn the Slave Act more than 
the Stamp Act. 

Sir, I might here stop. It is enough in this 
place, and on this occasion, to sliow the uncon- 



Commons. was asked Avhether he thought the 
people of America would submit to this Act if 
modified. His brief emphatic response was : 
♦' No, never, unless compelled by force of 
arms." Chatham, yet weak with disease, but 
mighty in eloquence, exclaimed in ever-mem- 
orable words : " We are told America is obsti- 
nate — America is almost in oj)en rebellion. 
S'n, I rejoice that Jlmerica lias resisted. Three 
millions of people so dead to all the feelings 



not yet exhausted. Even if this Act could 
claim any validity or apology under the Consti- 
tution, which it cannot, it lacks that essential 
support in the Public Conscience of the States, 
where it is to be enforced, ichich is the life of 
all law. and without which any law must become 
a dead letter. 

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BuT- 
j.Kii] was right, when, at the beginning of the 
session; he pointedly said that a law which 



27 

could be enforced only by the bayonet, -was no \ The fugitive never was returned; but lived 
law. Sir. it is idle to suppose that an Act of | in freedom to a good old age. down to a very 
Congress becomes effective, merely by compli- '. recent period, a monument of the just forbear- 
ance with the forms of legislation. Something ance of him whom we aptly call the' Father of 
more is necessary. The Act must be in har> | his Country. It is true that he sought her re- 
mony with the prevaihng public sentiment of! turn. This we must regret, and find its apolo- 
the community upon which it bears. Of course, ' gy. He was at the time a slaveholder. Thoiio-h 
I do not suggest that the cordial support of : often with various degrees of force express- 
every man or of every small locality is neces- | ing himself against slavei-y, and promising hig 
sary; but I do mean ihat the public feelings, | suffrage for its abolitionThe did not see this 
the public convictions, the public conscience, | wrong as he savr it at the close of life, in the 
must not be touched, wounded, lacerated, by '' illnmination of another sphere. From this act 



every endeavor to enforce it. With all these 
it must be so far in harmony, that, like other 
laws, by which property, liberty, and life, are 
guarded, it may be administered by the ordi- 
nary process of the courts, without jeoparding 
the public peace or shocking good men. If this 
be true as a general rule — if the public support 
and sympathy be essential to the life of all law, 
this is especially the case in an enactment 
which concerns the important and sensitive 



of Washington, still swayed by the policy of 
the world, I appeal to Washington wi-iting his 
will. From '\Vashington on earth 1 appeal to 
Washington in Heaven. Seek not by his nams 
to justify any such effort. His death is above 
his life. His last testament cancels his author- 
ity as a slaveholder. However he may have 
appeared before man, he came into the pres- 
ence of God only as the liberator of his slaves. 
Grateful for this esample, I am grateful also, 



rights of Personal Liberty. In conformity with that while a slaveholder, and socking the re- 



tbis prinoiple tlie Legislature of Massachusetts, 
by formal resolution, in 1850, with singular 
unanimity, declared : 

" We hold it to be the duty of Congress to pass 
such laws only in regard thereto as will be main- 
tained by the sentiments of the Free States, tvhere 
such laws are to be enforced.'' 

The duty of consulting these sentiments was 
recognised by Washington. While President 
of the United States, at the close of his Admin- 
istration, he sought to recover a slave, who had 
fled to New Hampshire. His autograph letter 
to Mr. Whipple, the Collector of Portsmouth, 
dated at Philadelphia, 28th November. 1796, 
•which I now hold in my hand, and which has 
never before seen the light, after describing the 
fugitive, and particularly expressing the desire 
of "her mistress.'' Mrs. Washington, for her 
return, employs the following decisive lan- 
guage : 

"I do not mean, however, by this request, that 
such violent measures should be used as vvottld ex- 
cite A MOB OR RIOT, WHICH MIGHT BE THE CASE IF 
SHE HAS ADHERE.NTS, OR EVEN U-NEASY SENSATIONS 
IN THE MINDS OF WELL-DISPOSED ClTIZEiNS. Rather 

than either of these should happen, I would forego 
her services altogether; and the example also, which 
is of infinite more importance. 

" GEORGE "WASIIIXGTON." 

Mr. Whipple, in his reply, dated at Ports- 



turn of a fugitive, he has left in pormunent rec- 
ord a rule of conduct which, if adopted by hia 
country, will make Slave-Hunting impossible. 
The chances of a riot or mob. or ''even uneasy 
sensations among well-disposed persons,"'' are 
to prevent any such pursuit. 

Sir, the existing Slave Act cannot be enforc- 
ed without violating the precept of Washing- 
ton. Not merely " unea,sy sensations of well- 
disposed persons.'"' but rage, tumult, commotion, 
mob. riot, violence, death, gush from its fatal 
overflowing fountains; 

-"- -^ — hoc Ibntc derivata cladcs 
In patriam pnpultiraque flunit. 
Not a case occurs without endangering the 
public peace. Workmen are brutally dragged 
from emplovments to which they are wedded 
hy years of successful labor ; husbands are 
ravished from wives, and parents from chil- 
dren. Everywhere there is disturbance; at 
Detroit, Bufi'alo, Harrisburgh, Syracuse, Phil- 
adelphia. NeAV York. Boston. At Buffalo the 
fugitive was cruelly knocked by a log of 
wood against a red-hot stove, and his mock 
trial commenced while the blood still oozed 
from his wounded head. At Syracuse he 
was rescued by a sudden mob ; so also at Bos- 
ton. At Harrisburgh the fugitive was shot ; 
at Christiana the Slave-Hunter was shot. At 



mouth, December 22, 1796, an autograph copy New York unprecedented excitement, always 
of which I have, recognises the rule of Wash- ' 
ington : 



with uncertain consequences, has attended every 

case. Again at Boston a fugitive, according 

"I will now, sir, agreeably to your desire, send her ' to the received report, was first l>asely seized 

to Alexandria, if it be practicable witltout tlw conse- I under pretext that he was a criminal ; arrcst- 

quenc,sichickyonex^^pt-~thatofexcuingariotor^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^ deadly struggle : guarded by 

a 7no/), or ci-KatiHs; uiUiosy seusations iti, the mimls of , „. •' , ^ -,■''■ ^ i- ° n S i «• 

■• • -■ „f„,i officers who acted in vjolatum of the laws oi 



u-ell-disposcd perso)ts. The first cannot be calculated 
beforehand; it will be governed by the popular opin- 
ion of the moment, or the circumstances that may 
arise in the transaction. The latter may be sought 
into and judged of by conversing with such persons 
without discovering the occasion. So far as I have 
had opportunity, I perceive that diflforent sentiments 
are entertained on this subject." 



the State; tried in a Court House surround- 
ed by chains contrary to the common law ; 
finally surrendered to Slavery by trampling on 
the criminal process of the State, under an 
escort in violation again of the laws of the 
State, while the pulpits trembled and the whole 



28 



people, not merely " uneasy," but swelling «-ith 
ill-suppressed indignation, fur the sake of order 
and tranquillity, without violence Avltnessed 
the shanuful catastrophe. 

With every attempt to administer the Slave 
Act, it constantly becomes more revolting, par- 
ticularly in its influence on the agents it en- 
lists. Pitch cannot be touched without defile- 
ment, and all who lend themselves to this work 
seem at once and unconsciously to lose the 
better part of man. The spirit of the law 
passes into them, as the devils entered the swine. 
Upstart commissioners, the more mushrooms 
of courts, vie and revie with each other. Now 
by indecent speed, now by harshness of man- 
ner, now Ijy a denial of evidence, now by crip- 
pling the defence, and now by open glaring 
wrong, they make the odious Act yet more odi- 
ous. Clemency, grace, and justice, die in its 
presence. All this is observed by the world. 
Not a case occurs which does not harrow the 
souls of good men, and bring tears of. sympa- 
thy to t!ie eyes, also those other noble tears 
■which " patriots shed o'er dying laws."' 

Sir, I shall speak frankly. If there be an ex- 
ception to this feeling, it will be found chiefly 
with a peculiar class. It is a sorry fact that 
the 'mercantile interest,"' in its unpardon- 
able selfishness, twice in English history, frown- 
ed upon the endeavors to suppress the atro- 
city of Algerine Slavery; tliat it sought to 
baffle Wllberforce's great eifort for the aboli- 
tion of the African slave trade ; and that, by 
a sordid compromise, at the formation of our 
Constitution, it exempted the same detest- 
ed Heaven-defying traffic from American 
judgment. And now repre.-entatives of this 
'■interest,'' forgetful that commerce is the child 
of Freedom, join in hunting the Shave. But 
the great heart of the people recoils from this 
enactment. It palpitates for the fugitive, and 
rejoices in his escape. Sir, I am telling you 
facts. The literature of the age is all on his 
side. The songs, more potent than laws, are 
fiir him. The poets, with voices of melody, are 
for Freedom. Who could sing for Slavery? 
They who make the permanent opinion of the 
country, who mould our youth, whose words, 
dropped into the soul, are the germs of char- 
acter, supplicate for the SUive. And now, sir, 
l.iehi)!d a new ;ind heavenly ally. A woman, 
inspired liy Christian genius, enters the lists, 
like another Joan of Arc. and with ,marvelh)as 
power sweeps tlie chords of the popular heart. 
Now melting to tears, and now inspiring to 
rage, her work everywhere touches the con- 
science, and makes the Shive-Kimter.more hate- 
ful. In a lirief period, nearly 100.000 copies 
of Unck Tom's Cabin have been already'' circu- 
lated. But this extraordinary and sudden suc- 
cess — sur]iassing all other instances in the rec- 
ords of literature — cannot be regarded merely 
as the triumph of genius, lliglier far than this, 
t is the testimony of the people. ])y an impre- 
cedcuted act. against the Fugitive Slave Bill. 



These things I dwell upon as the incentives 
and tokens of an existing public sentiment, 
which renders thi.s Act practically inoperative, 
except as a tremendous engine of terror. Sir, 
the sentiment is just Even in the lands of 
slavery, the slave-trader is loathed as an igno- 
ble character, from whom the countenance is 
turned away; and can the Slave-Hunter be 
more regarded Avhile pursuing his prey in a 
land of Freedom? In early Europe, in barba- 
rous days, while Slavery prevailed, a Hunting 
Master, iiack jagender Hen; as the Germans 
called him, was held in aversion. Nor was this 
all. The fugitive was welcomed in the cities, 
and protected against the pursuit Sometimes 
vengeance awaited the Hunter. Down to this 
day, at Revel, now a Russian city, a sword is 
proudly preserved with which a Hunting Baron 
was beheaded, who, in violation of the munici- 
pal rights of this place, seized a fugitive slave. 
Hostile to this Act as our public sentiment may 
be, it exhibits no troph}^ like this. The State 
laws of Massachusetts have been violated in 
the seizui'e of a fugitive slave ; but no sword, 
like that of Revel, now hangs at Boston. 

I have said, sir, that this sentiment is just. 
And is it not ? Every escape from Slavery 
necessarily and instinctively awakens the re- 
gard of all who love Freedom. The endeavor, 
though unsuccessful, reveals courage, man- 
hood, sharacter. No story is read with more 
interest than that of our own Lafayette, when, 
aided by a gallant South Carolinian, in defi- 
ance of the despotic ordinances of Austria, 
kindred to our Slave Act he strove to escape 
from the bondage of Olmutz. Literature 
pauses with exultation over the struggles of 
Cervantes, the great Spaniard. Avhile a slave in 
Algiers, to regain the liberty for which he says, 
in his immortal work, "we ought to risk life 
itself Slavery being the greatest evil that can 
fall to the lot of man." Science, in all her 
manifold triumphs, throbs with pride and de- 
light, that Arago, the astronomer and philoso- 
pher — devoted republican also — was redeemed 
from barbarous Slavery to become one of her 
greatest sons. Religion rejoices serenely, with 
joy unspcakaltle. in the final escape of Vincent 
de Paul. Exposed in the public square of Tu- 
nis to the inspection of the traftickurs in human 
flesh, this illustrious Frenchman was subjected 
to every vileness of treatment, like a horse, 
compelled to open his mouth, to show his teeth, 
to trot to run. to exhibit his strength in lifting 
burtlien,«. and then, like a horse, legally .sold in 
market overt. Passing from master to master, 
after a protracted servitude, he achieved his 
freedom, and regaining France, commenced 
that resjilendent career of charit}' by which he 
is jilaced among the great names of Christen- 
dom. Princes and orators have lavi.^hed pane- 
gyrics upon this fugitive slave; and the Catho- 
lic Church, in homage to his extraordinary 
virtues, hn'^ introduced him into the company 
of sain t8. 



29 



Less by genius or eminent services, than by 
Bufferings, are the fiigitive slaves of our country 
now commended. For tliem every sentiment of 
humanity is aroused : 

" Who could refrain 

That had a heart to love, and in that heart 
Courage to make his love known ?"' 

Rude and ignorant they may be : but in their 



Jury, in a question of Personal Liberty and a 
isuit at common law; that its glaring unconsti- 
tutionaly finds a prototype in the Briti;-!! Stamp 
Aet, which our fathers refused to obey as un- 
constitutional on two parallel grounds — -first, 
because it was a usurpation by Parliament of 
powers not belonging to it under the British 
Constitution and an infraction of rights be- 



verv efforts for Freedom, they claim kindred ! longing to the Colonies ; and secondly, because 



it was a denial of Trial by Jury in certain 
cases of property ; that as Liberty is far above 
property, so is the outrage perpetrated by the 
American Congress far above tluit perpetrated 
by the British Parliament: and, finally, that 
the Slave Aet has not that support in the 
public sentiment of the States where it is to 
be executed, which is the life of all law, and 
which prudence and the precept of Washing- 
ton require. 

Sir. thus far T have arrayed the obiections 
to this Act, and the false interpretations out of 
which it has sprung. Biit I am asked what I 
offer as a sul'Stitiite for the legislation which I 
denounce. Freely I will answer. It is to be 
found in a correct appreciation of the provis- 
ion of the Constitution, undtn- which this dis- 
cussion occurs. Look at it in the double light of 
reason and of Freedom, and we cannot mistake 

J 1 ■ t. ,. ii I- „ «i.„^,.„ -.^r^ «J;=f ' the exnct extent of its requirements. Here is 
surd, and impotent ; that as Shrvcry can exist i , . . i 

. ', . ,^ ,. -.• 1 _ _ _ J _ - -^ 1- the provision : 

"Xo person held to service or lalior in one State, 
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, 
in consequenee of any law or re^rulatian therein, bo 
discharged from suvh service or lal)or, but shall be 
delivered up on elnim of the party to whom such ser- 
vice or labor maj' be duo."' 

From the very language employed it is obvi- 
ous that this is merely a compact between the 



■with all that is noble in the Past. They are 
among the heroes of our age. Romance has 
no stories of more thrilling interest than theirs. 
Classical antiquity has preserved no examples 
of adventurous trial more worthy of renown. 
Among them are men whose names will be 
treasured in the annals of their race. By the 
eloquent voice they have already done much 
to make their wrongs known, and to secure 
the respect of the world. History will soon 
lend them her avenging pen. Proscribed by 
you during life, they will proscrilie you through 
all time. Sir, already judgment is beginning. A 
righteous public sentiment palsies your enact- 
ment. 

And now, sir, let us review the field over which 
we have passed. We have seen that any com- 
promise, finally closing the discussion of Sla- 
very under the Constitution, is tyrannical, ab- 



only by virtue of positive law, and as it has no 
such positive support in the Constitution, it 
cannot exist within the National jurisdiction; 
that the Constitution nowhere recognises prop- 
erty in man. and that, according to its true in- 
terpretation. Freedom and not Slavery is na- 
tional, while Slavery and not Freedom is section- 
al : that, in this spirit, the National Government 
was first organi;:ed under V/ashlngton, himself , States, with a ■prchihiiion (m the States, confer- 



an Abolitionist, surrounded by Abolitionists, 

while the whole country, by Its Church, its _ 

Colleges, Its Literature, and all its best voices, I examples of other countries, and the principles 

was united against Slavery, and the national of jurisprudence, it is a compact All arrango- 



ring no power on the nation. In its natural 
signification it is acomi^act. According to the 



flag at that time nowhere within the National 
Territory covered a single slave : still further, 
that the National Government is a Government 
of delegated powers, and as among these there 
is no power to support Slavery, this Institution 
cannot be national, nor can Congress in any 
way legislate in Its behalf; and, finally, that 
the establishraent of this principle Is the true 
way of peace and safety for the Republic. 
Considering next the provision for the surren- 
der of fugitives from labor, we have seen that 
it was not one of the original compromises of 



ments fi)r the extradition ot fugitives have been 
customarily compacts. Except under the ex- 
press obligations of treaty, no nation is bound 
to surrender fugitives. Especially has this 
been the case with fugitives for Freedom. In 
medieval Europe, cities refused to recognise 
this obligation in favor of persons even under 
the same National Government. In 1531, 
while the Netherlands and Spain were united 
under Charles V, the Supreme Council of 
iNIechlin rejected an application from Spain 
for the surrender of a fugitive slave. By ox- 
tiie Constitution; that irwas introduced tar- press compact alone could this be secured. But 



dily and with hesitation, and adopted with 
little discussion, and then and for a long pe- 
riod after was regarded, with comparative in- 
difference ; that the recent Slave Act. though 
many times unconstitutional, is especially so 
on two grounds — first, as a usurpation by Con- 
gress of powers not granted by the Constitu 



the provision of the Constitution was borrowed 
from the Ordinance of the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory, which is expressly declared to be a com- 
pact : and this Ordinance, finally drawn by 
Nathan Dane, was again borrowed in its distinc- 
tive features from the early institutions of JNIa.s- 
sachusetts, among which, as far back as 1643, 



tion, and an infraction of rights secured to the was a compact of like nature with other New 
States; and secondly, as a denial of Trial by ; England States. Thus this provision is a com- 



30 



pact in language, in nature, in its whole his- 
tory ; as we have already seen it is a compact, 
according to the intentions of our Fathers and 
the genius of our institutions. 

As a compact its execution depends absolute- 
ly upon the States, without any intervention of 
the Natifjn. Eack State, in tkc exercise of its 
own judgment. vAll determine for itself the pre- 
cise extent of the obligations assumed. As a com- 
pact in derogation of Freedom, it must be con- 
strued strictly in every respect — leaning al- 
ways in favor of Freedom, and shunning any 
meaning, not clearly necessary, which takes 
away important personal rights : mindful that 
the parties to whom it is applicable are re- 
garded as " persons," of course with all the 
rights of "persons'' under the Constitution; 
especially mindful of the vigorous maxim of 
the common law, " that he is cruel and impi- 
ous who does not always favor Freedom ; '" and 
also completely adopting in letter and in spirit, 
as becomes a just people, the rules of the great 
Commentator, that '• the law is always ready 
to catch at anything in favor of Liberty." 
With this key the true interpretation is natural 
and easy. 

Briefly, the States are prohibited from any 
'' law or regulation '■ by which any '• person " 
escaped from "service or labor'" maybe dis- 
charged therefrom, and on establishment of the 
claim to such '-service or labor,'" he is to be 
delivered up. But the mode by which the 
claim is to be tried and determined is not speci- 
fied. All this is obviously within the control 
of each State. It may be done by virtue of 
express legislation, in which event any Legisla- 
ture, justly careful of Personal Liberty, would 
surround the fugitive with every shield of the 
law and Constitution. Rut here a fact, preg- 
nant with Freedom, must be studiously ob- j 
served. The name Slave— that litany of wrong i 
and woe—- does not appear in the clause. Here 
isno unambiguous phrase, incapable of a double 
sense; no "po,sitive'' language, applicable only 
to slaves, and excluding all other classes ; no 
word of that absolute certainty, in every par- 
ticular, which forbids any interpretation ex- 
cept that of Slavery, and makes it impossible 
" to catch at anything in favor of Liberty."' 
Nothing of this kind is here. But passing from 
this; "cruelly and impiously '' renouncing for 
the moment all leanings for Freedom: refusing 
" to catch at anything in favor of Liberty;" 
abandoning the cherished idea of the P^lthers, 
that '• it was wrong to admit in the Constitution 
the idea of property in man;"" and, in the face 
of these couuuauding principles, assuming two 
things — first, that, in the evasive langiuige of 
this Clause, the Convention, whatever may 
have been the ^im of individual members, real- 
ly intended fugitive slaves, which is sometimes 
questioned — and, si'condly, that, if they so in- 
tended, the language employed can be judicial- 
ly regarded as justly applicable to fugitive 
slaves, which is often and earnestly denied — 



' then the whole proceeding, without any ex- 
[ press legislation, may be left to the ancient and 
authentic forms of the common law, familiar 
to the framers of the Constitution and ample 
for the occasion. If the fugitive be seized with- 
out process, he will be entitled at once to his 
writ de Homine Replegiando, while the master, 
resorting to process, may find his remedy in 
the writ de Nativo Habendo — each writ requir- 
ing Trial by Jury. If from ignorance or lack 
of employment these processes have slumbered 
in our country, still they belong to the great 
arsenal of the common law, and continue, like 
other ancient writs, tanquam gladium in va- 
gina, ready to be employed at the first necessity. 
They belong to the safeguards of the citizen. 
But in any event and in either alternative the 
proceedings would be by " suit at common 
law," with Trial by Jury; and it would be the 
solemn duty of the court, according to all the 
forms and proper delays of the common law, 
to try the case on the evidence ; strictly to ap- 
ply all the protecting rules of evidence, and es- 
pecially to require stringent proof, by compe- 
tent witnesses under cross-examination, that the 
person claimed was held to service ; that hia 
service was due to the claimant ; that he had 
escaped from the State where such service was 
due ; and also proof of the lairs of the State 
under which he was held. Still further, to the 
Courts of each State must belong the determi- 
nation of the question, to what classes of per'- 
sons, according to just rides of interpretation, 
the phrase ^'persons held to service or labor" is 
strictly applicable. 

Such is this much-debated provision. The 
Slave States, at the formation of the Constitu* 
tion, did not propose, as in the cases of Natu- 
ralization and Bankruptcy, to empower the 
National Government to establish an uniform 
rule for the rendition of fugitives from labor, 
throughout the United States; they did not ask 
the National Government to charge itself in 
any way with this service : they did not ven« 
ture to offend the country, and particularly the 
Northern States, by any such assertion of a 
hateful right. They were content, under the 
sanctions of compact, to leave it to the public 
sentiment of the States. There. I insist it shall 



^Ir. President, I have occupied much time ; 
but the great sul)ject still stretches before us. 
One other point yet renuiins, which I should 
not leave untouched, and which justly belongs 
to the close. The Slave Act violates the Con- 
stitutitm and shocks the Pul)lic Conscience. 
With modesty and yet with firmness let me 
add, sir, it ulfends against the Divine Law. No 
such enactment can be entitled to support. As 
the throne of Gi>d is aliove every earthly throne, 
so are his laws ;uul statutes above all the laws 
and statutes of man. To ijuestion these is to 
question God himself. But to assume that hu- 
man laws are beyond question is to claim for 



II 



